I've been listening to right-wing talk radio quite a bit lately. No, I'm not changing sides, and I'm not serving penance for a brutal crime. But I occasionally get caught up in talk radio's Death Star tractor beam and subsequently drawn into its psychotic docking bay of crazy.
Seriously, though, you should try listening for a couple of days. It's almost like eavesdropping on super-secret meetings of the He-Man Obama Haters Club. It provides a real-time peek into the nonsense that's being injected into millions of brains every week. (According to Talkers magazine, around a tenth of the entire American population listens to Rush Limbaugh's show and Sean Hannity's show, together commanding close to 30 million listeners per week. Talk radio is still very relevant and deserves our attention.)
I won't spoil too many details, but if you tap into the hive you'll discover an endlessly entertaining debate about how Mitt Romney is a "liberal," with subsequent waffling between support for Herman Cain and Rick Perry. In fact, I overheard Hugh Hewitt criticize Herman Cain for being a gaffe-prone buffoon, then, oddly enough, effusively pitch Cain's book.
I also heard the formerly funny Dennis Miller remark about how President Obama, arguably one of the smartest presidents in modern history, isn't really very smart because he supports Keynesian economic policies. You'll hear that one a lot, though not always in the form of an insufferable and self-satirical Miller metaphor. More than almost anything else, you'll hear that the Recovery Act didn't stimulate economic growth even though it clearly did. By the way, you definitely won't hear a damn thing about how spending cuts and tax cuts have never in the history of America stimulated economic growth following a crushingly deep recession like the 2008 crash. Never.
Last week, I heard a host named Dennis Prager falsely label the Occupy Wall Street movement as being "anti-corporate" then, using this straw man argument, he pointed out the hypocrisy of various protesters communicating their anti-corporate views using their corporate-manufactured smartphones.
This misleading attack from Prager was followed by a radio edition of Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" in which O'Reilly warned his listeners that the Occupy Wall Street protests are becoming violent -- an obvious attempt to project the violent rhetoric of the tea party and other far-right apparatchiks onto the OWS movement. O'Reilly's only example of protester violence was a story about how a participant's dog's tooth became hooked onto the cuff of a police officer's shirt. Stop the presses and hide the children! A slightly ripped cuff! Meanwhile, police officers are attacking and beating protesters within an inch of their lives, and just today a man was critically injured when he was shot in the head with a ballistic projectile by Oakland police. The victim, Scott Olsen, is an Iraq war veteran. He fought to bring freedom to Iraq only to be wounded for exercising his right to assemble here at home.
But regarding this "anti-capitalist" and "anti-corporation" meme, it's one that's heard throughout talk radio and it's easily the centerpiece of the far-right attack against the movement. Everyone from Prager to Glenn Beck to candidate Herman Cain is repeating it.
Of course, it's almost entirely untrue.
The Wall Street Journal conducted a poll recently that asked OWS supporters, "What frustrates you the most about the political process in the United States?" Only three percent said "the democratic/capitalist system." Three percent. The poll also asked supporters what they hope the movement will achieve and only four percent wanted the "dissolution" of the capitalist system.
The movement is opposed to deregulated, free market capitalism. Short of Ron Paul disciples and Ayn Rand cultists, no reasonable American wants a system in which Enron, Goldman Sachs, AIG or BP can commit heinous crimes and not pay the price. According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans want corporations to have less influence in America. That doesn't mean a supermajority of Americans are anti-corporation, it simply means that a supermajority of Americans agree that corporations have acquired too much power and therefore ought to be reined in. Not banished or banned, just watched more closely.
The OWS movement, like the American people, isn't anti-corporate, it's anti-corporate crime.
The real question here is why isn't Herman Cain against corporate crime?
Why isn't Dennis Prager against it, too?
Members of the Republican Party and the conservative movement are all about law and order, right? It's remarkable, then, that Dennis Prager and Herman Cain aren't supporting accountability against the corporations that poison our water or exacerbate unemployment or trigger a deep recession.
And that's exactly what OWS is seeking: accountability.
Occupy Wall Street protesters aren't necessarily against the corporations that churn out their iPads and coffee products, as the misinformed designer of this photoshopped image insinuates, but, rather, they're against the corporations that corrupt the system, deplete the Treasury and ultimately aren't held accountable for their crimes. The protesters are demanding that the corporate criminals who engaged in the shoddy, Machiavellian investment scams that plunged us into the deepest recession since the Great Depression be held accountable for their actions. To date, not a single instigator of the economic collapse has been prosecuted.
One of the rants I've heard repeatedly on talk radio is how OWS protesters are flagrantly disobeying the law -- how they're not seeking permits and how they're disrespecting authority and law enforcement. Fine, then why shouldn't corporations be held to a similar standard? Why does Hugh Hewitt want protesters locked up for breaking the law, while giving corporate criminals total immunity from investigation, prosecution and regulation? After all, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have all the constitutional rights of people, so let's treat them like any person would be treated if suspected of malfeasance.
At the same time, the Republican presidential candidates are mostly in line with talk radio, and everyone from Michele Bachmann to Mitt Romney is in favor of rolling back regulations against corporations, as if the last decade never occurred.
You might have heard the various GOP hopefuls marching in lockstep criticizing something called "Dodd-Frank" during the televised debates. (Incidentally, Dennis Miller compared the candidates to "crickets in a Hellmann's jar spitting cigar juice on each other." Okay, admittedly that one made me giggle.)
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was the only piece of legislation passed in direct response to the financial sector's disastrous shenanigans. Even though it was watered-down in Congress, Dodd-Frank is an attempt to crack down on the financial sector and its use of derivatives, Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and the like, while also protecting investors and shielding consumers from predatory lenders. The act also reduced the TARP bailout payments by $225 billion. I'm not sure why the Republicans would want to repeal a reduction in TARP payments, but they do.
Mitt Romney also wants to roll back the Sarbanes-Oxley Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act, which was signed by President Bush in response to the Enron collapse and the subsequent financial crisis. Yes, Romney is apparently the "liberal" one even though he's lining up to the right of President Bush. Put another way, Republicans and conservatives want to revert back to the pre-Bush system that allowed Enron to happen, risking more financial collapses in the future. The consequences are almost too horrendous to imagine.
Now, to be fair, I can understand why some of the talk radio people might not support the OWS movement's demand to end corporate monopolies via enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act or other means. Obviously the universe of right-wing syndicated talk radio wouldn't exist if Presidents Reagan and Clinton didn't deregulate the broadcasting industry, allowing media corporations like Clear Channel to buy up multiple stations in individual markets and replace local programming with syndicated franchises. (Between a massive talk radio audience and the dominant ratings of Fox News Channel, along with the rest of the news media's self-conscious fear of appearing too liberal, the idea of any kind of "liberal media bias" is laughable.)
There was a time when I thought it was impossible for anyone to take the side of Wall Street and the financial sector. I thought, who could possibly excuse the corporations that ushered the world to the brink of economic ruin by suggesting that we continue to gift to them unfettered latitude? The Republican candidates for president and most of AM talk radio have stepped up to that challenge and are defending the indefensible. And they're only a few percentage points away from getting exactly what they want.
Listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show on iTunes, with Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I said (in a thread lower down that ran out of "reply" buttons) Tax cuts stimulate job growth.
You said:
"No, they don't. DEMAND stimulates job growth, and that comes from the poor and middle class having money, which is a DIRECT result of high tax rates on the upper classes!"
Ok.. first, this is a CLEAR advocation of "spreading the wealth". So, to that I'll say, we are not a socialist or communist country. The govt. should never have the right to take from one group and give it to another.
2nd, "demand" is something that we will always have. Third world countries have "demand" but no jobs. So, simply put, "demand" alone does NOT create jobs.. it creates "demand". In this sense "need" and "demand" cannot be separated. How they can be separated is in the sense of PRODUCTS (or services) being in demand. Things we do NOT need. This is the essence of what drives a successful economy. The kind of demand that is not a need. And this "demand" does NOT create jobs either.. because FIRST, there must be ACTUAL PRODUCTS or services to demand.
So, BEFORE any demand can exist.. THE PRODUCT must exist. And where do you think these products come from?? They come from businesses that CREATE THEM. They come from the entrepreneurs and business owners!
This MUST happen FIRST! And raising taxes on those who engage in new businesses / entrepreneurships will DISCOURAGE them from taking a risk on starting a new business or product. Demand does NOT start the process of creating jobs.. it is a part of the process but it is the creation of the new business or product that actually creates the jobs.
If I had seen this when I posted my first response to you (below), I would have put my comment about "surplus goods and services" here. You're assuming that "Supply creates its own demand." Economists call that "Say's Law." Keynes had pretty much debunked Say's Law because it could not account for a general glut on the market, and the Great Depression was such a general glut.
"If you take way their goal of creating wealth for themselves or make it too hard for them, they have no reason to create products."
That gets back to Supply Side economics. Go back over our economic history and ask, "When was it too hard for producers to produce?" The 1970s, with its stagflation might have been such a time, but I doubt you can point to any other period where John Maynard Keynes could not have argue his theory and Arthur Laffer could.
So, according to your theory, one should not take money away from one group and give it to another-that I agree. We should not take money from the middle class and give it to the wealthy. But you're greedy so you want their money too. You are the reason capitalism doesn't work.
Now, demand for product is the reason I make the product to begin with. And no, increasing business and the wealthy taxes to be equal to everyone else, is not going to keep me from making products-BUT LACK OF DEMAND IS..
And I don't need people to have PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS to increase demand. I need them to have a job-private or public. And then and only then will there be demand and then and only then will I make product. In fact, we know you are lying, because product supply is sitting on the shelves unsold. BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMAND. BECASUE PEOPLE LIKE YOU TAKE MONEY FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND GIVE IT TO THE WEALTHY.
LOOK ME UP-I HAVE A REAL BUSINESS. DO YOU?
There are a handful of businesses like mine that really care about what everyone makes and want to make a good product. But we are few and far between. In 30 years of owning my own business, I've met 4 others that worked to offer a good product. The rest all just want more money.
People like the 1%ters, make honest small businesses ashamed to be lumped in with them. We don't stand behind these thieves. I want them prosecuted and put in jail. And if you hear any business tell you they need tax cuts-they are lying. Business and the wealthy always have paid less in taxes than the middle class. I've been trying to get this story out to the news for 2 years.
You must always remember 70% of the people who could steal without being caught, will steal. So, please keep fighting, as I will, Keep standing up, for this is our last chance to get rid of the thieves who have stolen trillions-and done so in the name of capitalism. They are not capitalist-they are thieves!
Once again I ask you.. how did the 1% take the wealth from the poor??
"Business and the wealthy always have paid less in taxes than the middle class. I've been trying to get this story out to the news for 2 years. "
YOU are the one who is lying. PROVE your claims.. how are business owners paying less in taxes that the middle class. Successful business owners who are in the 1% are paying the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of all taxes taken in by the govt. You are the one who is being dishonest.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to arrest 26 peaceful, law
abiding citizens who were exercising their First Amendment rights in
Legislative Plaza Friday. Over 100 state troupers and Homeland
Security officers with no visible badge numbers, driving state police
cars and special vehicles,
lined the streets around the Plaza to overwhelm a nonviolent group of
people protesting government corruption brought about by undue
corporate influence.
Magistrate Tom Nelson dismissed the charges stating that he could
"find no authority anywhere for anyone to authorize a curfew anywhere
on Legislative Plaza."
Safety Commissioner Bill Gibbons said, "We don't have the resources to
go out and in effect babysit protesters 24-7..."
The protesters aver that they never asked for any extra attention, but
that the regular one patrol officer who was removed from the area this
Wednesday, be returned to duty. It was only after this regular
presence was removed from the plaza that the violence and other
problems became difficult for civilian solution.
The question remains, is it fiscally responsible to remove one regular
patrol and replace it with the expense to bring troupers from all
around the state, house them in hotels, and bring in expensive gas
guzzling SUV's to arrest peaceful citizens practicing their First
Amendment rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBZi_oJ83Yg
Change both of those, and the politicians go right back to doing their JOBS, rather than whatever the lobbyist of the hour is paying them to do!
back in the 1930's or some time back then, the wealthy paid 90% of their income in taxes. guess what? their world didn't end, and their were few billionaires back then. so if you earn, say $50 billion, you want me to believe you cannot live off of $5 billion? really? and if you earn $50 million, you cannot live off of $5 million. they managed in the 30's, they can manage now. close the tax loopholes, and raise corporate taxes. this congress will never do this. that is why those up for re-election must be voted out of office, and obama re-elected, or else this country's economic situation will remain grim?
You can replace it, cut spending, or both.
Would it make sense to say pay more taxes regardless of who is being asked to do so if we cannot first find out how that revenue is being allocated? Why feed a black hole of constant state corruption and fiscally irresponsibility?
We can't seem to account for the Funds of the IRS or the Pentagon both of these entities are black holes who's books are lost to the four winds as far as audits go. They will not tell you that many of them sit on the board of the Federal Reserve but cannot say were your hard worked dollars are going via income tax? We are the most heavily taxed country in the world when you compare it against what the country gives back to you in terms of services. What is the justification for this pithy return of services?
Get results before you pay another dime. Don't get sucked into the quagmire debate that is really nothing more then magicians smoke roose to disappear with the real problem.
Occupy Wall Street: A movement founded on capitalism reform, not on anti-capitalism
http://selfdeprecate.com/politics-articles/occupy-wall-street-capitalism-reform-movement/
Occupy Wall Streeters are right about skewed economic rewards in the United States | Economic Policy Institute
"...According to the data, they’re fundamentally right. This paper presents 12 figures that demonstrate how skewed economic rewards (in income, wages, capital income, and wealth) have become in the United States. These figures, most of which cover 1979 through 2007 (prior to the recession) generally break out trends for the top 1 percent, the next richest 9 percent, and then the bottom 90 percent of households or earners. While income growth at the very top—the richest 1 percent and above—has been truly staggering, incomes at roughly the 90th percentile and above (the richest 10 percent) have generally at least matched the rate of economy-wide productivity. It is below the 90th percentile where one really sees the potential fruits of economic growth (as measured by economy-wide productivity) failing to reach American households. An economy that fails to cut in 90 percent of American households on a fair share of economic growth is one that needs serious reform. As the figures show:..."
Then came OSHA Occupational Safety was needed to police Corporations because they didn't care about employees well being. These agencies didn't come into existance because Corporate cared about you. They came into being because they don't. Go to any foreign third world nation and find out who is making our shoes, purses, and soccer balls and you will find they are children, women and they work under the most unpredictable and harsh conditions in lands that have no such laws. Why? Because they can get away with it.
Here's some links on Nike's contract sweatshop...
http://www.teamsweat.org/
TeamSweat
"...By marshalling the energy of a decade and a half of organizing on the Nike sweatshop issue, Team Sweat is striving to ensure that all workers who produce Nike products are paid a living wage..."
http://www.youtube.com/user/TeamSweat?blend=9&ob=5#p/u/0/M5uYCWVfuPQ
TeamSweat's Channel - YouTube
The world needs more Jim Keadys.
Now they face a corporate-owned two-party duopoly that has captured all three branches of the federal government.
"There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship." -- Ralph Nader
How many "crushingly deep" recessions have we had to go on? There's no real way to know if these things have or have not worked in the past because there are so many other factors involved. Sometimes we just need to apply simple common sense. And raising taxes on those who create the jobs is going to hinder job growth.. this is a "no brainer".
we raised the marginal tax rates to 90% on millionaires and enjoyed the greatest growth ever
cutting taxes every time has resulted in ZERO growth--added ZERO jobs
You can have whatever tax rate you want as long as all your economic competitors have had their factories blown to hell and they have to rebuilt them from scratch with no capital.
Germany, France, Britain, Japan, Russia, China... think this one through, genius. The problem comes about when those new factories come online in the 60's and 70's and yours are now worn out.
Might even want to get past page three in your fabulous history book.