David : I knew that the gap at the top of the income heap has been closing for the past decade or more. And you probably are correct that the Democrats pulled in the most $$$ from fat cats in 2004 and 2008. Anything but inexplicable, though, just think "George W Bush" or, as in 2008, the party of George W Bush. The man was pure poison to a heckovalot of people, maybe the rich more than anyone else. In any case, Bush / his policies was intensely disliked. Getting rid of him was regarded as a high virtue even if the effort failed in 04. The Financial Times, not long ago, ran a story about rich Democrats. The item also made the point that there is a reason why a bunch of Democrats have abandoned Pelosi on the Bush tax cuts issue, we are speaking of elected Democrats who have raked in big bucks from rich Democrats and they are getting, uhhhh, feedback. In any case, in 2010, the rich have reverted to form, and from what I can gather the money is going to the GOP this year, big time. Regardless, the Republicans think of themselves as defenders of wealth, for which they have one-hundred-and-one reasons. Even if, for all I can say, the split is narrow, close to 50 / 50 rich Democrats vs rich Republicans, unless there is a paradigm shift in the near future, the GOP leadership has traditionally been the protector of wealth. Hardly saying this is all bad, just to make an obvious point. And seems to me the point in my rant is valid, namely, to think that 100% of the rich are model citizens, who 100% of the time invest their $$$ in the US economy for the general good, is pure malarkey. It would surprise the hell out of me if the figure was better than 40 %, max 55 %. If this is remotely the case then I think my rant was not only a lot of fun , but pretty much true. So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o correct me if I am wrong. Are 45 % of the rich virtuous and wise investors in America or are 85 % ? Donno if anyone can answer with real certainty, though. Who hides the most money in Zurich or the Caymans ? Who ships the most jobs overseas ? Who ( besides Kerry and the Kennedy clan ) buys the most expensive yachts ? Anyway, I kind of enjoy being a Populist now and then, don't spoil my fun, OK ? Billy ;-) In a message dated 10/9/2010 7:24:32 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
I regret to inform you that most of the high income folks in 2004 and 2008 gave money to the Democrats. But don't let that hurt a good rant. David To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.--Thomas Jefferson On 10/9/2010 7:35 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Presto : Suddenly I can see it, the reason for the loud complaints about bloated government programs, public sector unions that reward inefficiency, dysfunctional community organizing campaigns, and many other things. Why could I suddenly see this obvious ? Because Steven Malanga knows how to communicate the problem. Or a major part of it. Here is a meta-problem, however, unwillingness of the Right to admit something else that is obvious, let's call it "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." Again and again there is the litany about how the rich need their millions ( or billions ) in order to expand business and hire new workers. To some extent this is true. But what is also true is a fact of life pointed out by Thorsten Veblen a century ago, namely the overwhelming urge on the part of the wealthy toward conspicuous consumption of luxury goods, viz, yachts, private jets, de luxe mansions, vacations on the Riviera, $ 400 haircuts, evening gowns that sell for $ 20,000 and a host of other things including spending as much on one meal as a middle class family of four spends of food for a week. And , O yeah, being able to brag to other rich sons-of-bitches how you have most of your money in Switzerland or the Caymans and have outsourced half of your work to Mexico or Asia. As long as people insist on looking at the problem in strictly partisan terms we will be stuck in this morass, organized public sector employees bilking the public for huge amounts ( $ 150,000 salaries for cops in Oakland, $ 80, 000 to teach grade school in New Jersey ), plus outrageous benefits. Personally I am pixxed off about both these phenomena. Really pixxed off considering what I have gone through in life and my compensation for a helluva lot of hard work, a pittance compared with an Oakland cop or a NJ 3rd grade teacher with half my formal education. But one reason I have never given a rat's ass for Republicans is the fact that they prefer to be hoodwinked by the financial elite, as if the elite always deserve their riches, which is a ludicrous and stupid way of looking at things. How to the rich get their millions / billions ? Several ways, starting with inheritance, but extending to social connections and pricey attorneys able to carve out special breaks for favored clients that grease their way to fortunes. But listen to the Big Shots in the Republican Party and 100% of the rich are hard working entrepreneurs who innovate, invest in employees, and are frugal to a fault. Such a viewpoint is pure crap. What we need is a Radical Centrist approach which takes both the Left and Right to the woodshed. Well, thanks to Malanga, I can now see much better, in ways impossible to me before hearing him on C-Span, just how fiscally and otherwise immoral a good number of public service unions are, and how half baked are many social service programs, and still other things. But to claim that the Republicans have "the answers" is what is has always been, a sick joke. Yes, a war against government spending that is unjustifiable is necessary. Indeed, it has been going on for a long time. But its like the old military when generals didn't give a hoot about the political side of things and didn't bother to learn how to deal with the civilian government. Again and again perfectly sound military ideas went down in flames on Capitol Hill. Since the post Viet Nam era that has changed drastically The generals, with Petraeus as prime example, with Mc Crystal as throwback to the "old style," now know how to communicate, and think is terms of nuance not just assertion and complaining, indeed, they are damned smart and good at thinking, and they usually are successful in their dealings with government. When is the GOP going to learn the same lesson ? CAN the GOP learn this lesson ? I really, really, really have my doubts --because to have any credibility Republicans would need to admit that Veblen was correct and that Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous is as much the problem as bloated gvt programs or unethical unions. Should I repeat this ? Maybe I should : Veblen was correct.....that Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous is as much the problem as bloated gvt programs or unethical unions. "Communication," the word means a heckovalot more than expressing one's self or being accurate, if even these skills are sometimes weak for politicians. It means being convincing through being honest and seeing both sides of an issue, and looking for remedies that take into account everything that should be taken into account. Yes, it can mean taking very strong stands. It sometimes can mean taking a partisan stand, but 100% of the time ? Not a chance in hell unless you don't care about credibility with anyone except other partisans. Being convincing is the key. That means, more than anything, being objective as much as possible, and being willing to drop partisanship when called for, which in my estimation is a minimum of 50 % of the time on average. Anything less is "politics as usual." Billy ===================================================== Washington Examiner Steven Malanga: Politicians win, taxpayers lose as government funds failed projects By: Steven Malanga from his book : Shakedown OpEd Contributor October 8, 2010 Part five in a five-part series In 2005, the Bush administration proposed to eliminate one of the last and least effective vestiges of the War on Poverty: aid to cities doled out in the form of community-development block grants. The effort failed, even though for 30 years the program has expended some $120 billion in thousands of communities, with little to show for the effort. Over the years, officials have squandered billions of taxpayer dollars by financing unworkable projects that often went bust, investing in new businesses that couldn't survive in depressed neighborhoods, and funding social programs with little idea of how they might actually strengthen their communities. But the block grant program has powerful friends in Washington who continue to protect it. President Obama, himself a product of government-funded community groups, has promised to vigorously expand block grants. How has the program spent taxpayer money? It has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into businesses in poor communities, often financing companies that had difficulty repaying their debts, backing projects that went bust, and rarely creating jobs in the distressed areas at which they were targeted. Nationwide, nearly 25 percent of block-grant-backed loans wind up in default, according to an analysis of dozens of community-lending portfolios. Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer Part 1: _Obama’s ascent heralded by government-funded activists _ (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obama_s-ascent-he ralded-by-government-funded-activists--1104007-104275978.html) Part 2: _The White House’s big payout to activists and public-sector unions_ (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Presdent-Obama_s-payout-to-community-organiers-1113485-104323523.html) Part 3: _Public-sector unions run amock in New Jersey_ (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Public-sector-unions-run-amock-using-New-Jer sey_s-state-budget-1125502-104393548) Part 4: _California’s cautionary budget-busting public-sector union story_ (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/A-cautio nary-tale-about-California_s-budget-busting-public-sector-unions-1136534-104 446603.html) Part 5: Politicians win, taxpayers lose as government funds failed projects In Los Angeles after the 1992 riots, for instance, the federal government plowed an astounding $430 million into a loan program. Since its crime-ridden target area remained an economically inhospitable place, the program had trouble finding companies to lend to. Criticized for not making loans quickly enough, it then started pouring money into local businesses which racked up big losses. Eventually, the Los Angeles City Council shut down the costly program, supposedly a national model for lending in troubled areas. Like Los Angeles, Buffalo has received huge infusions of federal urban aid--more than half a billion dollars in community-development block-grant money alone in 30 years. If this kind of urban aid truly worked, Buffalo would be a shining star in the economic-development constellation because it has gotten more block-grant money per capita than any other U.S. city. But as a series in the Buffalo News revealed, the city has almost nothing to show for its massive block grant aid, having squandered it on a suc cession of failed projects, including nearly $60 million into trying to revive its theater district, with numerous loans and grants to private businesses that then defaulted. Over time, local officials and Congress have allowed billions in block grant aid to go to politically connected groups--a far cry from the original intention of using the money to revive depressed neighborhoods. In recent years, for instance, congressmen have lavished millions of dollars for grants to zoos, for opera houses in Connecticut, Michigan, and Washington State, for the Southern New Mexico Fair and Rodeo, the Alabama Quail Trail, and the Iao Theater in Wailuku, Hawaii. In addition, well-off municipalities have used the program to build tennis courts, to finance arts centers, or to pretty up their downtown shopping districts. Bergen County, New Jersey, where annual household income is 55 percent above the national average, spent nearly $280,000 in block-grant money to keep alive a privately owned arts center less than half an hour from Broadway. The block-grant program is a tiny part of our now huge national budgetary problems. But there is a larger message in the survival of block grants. For 30 years, critics have been unable to reform or eliminate a program that is ineffective at best, with no clear goals, and a clear patronage machine for politicians and community groups at worst. The block grant effort illustrates how difficult reform becomes once a government program becomes entrenched. Steven Malanga is senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of "Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer." -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community _<[email protected]>_ (mailto:[email protected]) Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: _http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_ (http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism) Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_ (http://radicalcentrism.org/) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
