Clem posted this in another thread BUT i think it deserves it's own thread because it is just that important! Even Big money wants to get behind Bernie's ideas.

TUESDAY, AUG 11, 2015 07:59 AM EDT

Why conservative billionaires have started talking like Bernie Sanders: “We are creating a caste system from which it’s almost impossible to escape”

This is Kenneth Langone, the founder of Home Depot and a longtime GOP donor. His biggest fear? Income inequality

MATTHEW PULVER

I’ve written previously about the growing fear among elites that they’ve pushed economic inequality too far. That fear is proliferating, according to a New York Times Op-Ed this weekend by former marketing conglomerate CEO Peter Georgescu. Joined by his friend Ken Langone, founder of Home Depot, Georgescu warns his fellow 1 percenters that “[w]e are creating a caste system from which it’s almost impossible to escape.” The column raises the specter of “major social unrest” if inequality is not addressed.

Georgescu writes:

I’m scared. The billionaire hedge funder Paul Tudor Jones is scared. My friend Ken Langone, a founder of the Home Depot, is scared. So are many other chief executives. Not of Al Qaeda, or the vicious Islamic State or some other evolving radical group from the Middle East, Africa or Asia. We are afraid where income inequality will lead.

In June, Cartier chief Johann Rupert — worth an estimated $7.5 billion — delivered the same message to his wealthy colleagues, telling them that the intensifying inequality and what it portends “keeps me awake at night.” He told his fellow elites that “We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us.” Like Georgescu and Langone, Rupert feared unrest and asked, “How is society going to cope with structural unemployment and the envy, hatred and the social warfare?”

But while Rupert only mused about the prospects for continuing to hawk jewelry and the restfulness of his nights amid the tumult, Georgescu and Langone are being proactive. Georgescu writes that he and Langone “have been meeting with chief executives, trying to get action on inequality,” taking advantage of Langone’s tremendous access to business leaders. “You’d be hard-pressed to find a major CEO that wouldn’t take his call,” said a close associate of Rudy Giuliani of Langone in 2012. Georgescu and Langone are telling their patrician peers that if “inequality is not addressed, the income gap will most likely be resolved in one of two ways: by major social unrest or through oppressive taxes.” The word seems to be getting around at the global aristocracy’s water cooler, and Georgescu writes that they “find almost unanimous agreement on the nature of the problem and the urgent need for solutions.”

It is remarkable that Langone is partnered with Georgescu on this crusade for social justice. Langone served on the board of a leading populist philanthropy group called the New York Stock Exchange, and his deep concern for the downtrodden led him to chair that gang of do-gooders. He’s a longtime generous contributor to Republican presidential candidates who have been on the front lines of the battle to institute supply-side and neoliberal economics. “[T]here’s nobody better than him,” said Rudy Giuliani last year about Langone’s prowess as a bundler for GOP politicians. And when he isn’t giving money and raising funds for the political friends of big business, Langone gives the invaluable gift of his careful insight, last year comparing progressives’ attention to income inequality to Hitler’s political project in 1933.

The only thing Langone had right was the year: 1933. It was in that year that President Franklin Roosevelt took office at the height of the Great Depression, inequality peaked to record levels, and fears of revolt circulated among that era’s fat-cat elite. Capitalism, unreined during the 1920s, had hit another of its cyclical failures, this time its worst yet. The powerful feared revolution, and the New Deal constituted a sort of bargain made between capitalists and the people: A bit of socialism to save capitalism from itself.

That year, John Maynard Keynes issued an open letter to the newly inaugurated Roosevelt in the New York Times, whose two opening sentences of the more than 2,500-word manifesto defined the stakes and posed revolution as the price of failure of severely altering capitalism as it was practiced. Keynes was no radical. He urged the new president to work “within the framework of the existing social system,” that is, to reform capitalism without allowing it to be abandoned or abolished.

It was later revealed that when in 1938 a year-long recession threatened the gains made against the Depression, as conservative Democratic legislators urged severe cuts in public works and farm aid, Roosevelt feared revolution. “The president remarked that this would mean calling out the troops to preserve order,” wrote a cabinet member in his diary. “It might even mean a revolution, or an attempted revolution.”

Georgescu and Langone’s mission perhaps finds its best Depression-era analog in Joseph Kennedy, the millionaire father of the eventual president John F. Kennedy, who said of the Depression that “in those days I felt and said I would be willing to part with half of what I had if I could be sure of keeping, under law and order, the other half.” Kennedy, like many (but hardly all) of his elite colleagues, knew that capitalism had to be bridled if it was to survive. “I knew that big drastic changes had to be made in our economic system,“ he later told Joe McCarthy. “I wanted him in the White House for my own security.”

Langone and Georgescu — like Kennedy, Roosevelt and Keynes — are urging another radical reformation of capitalism so that truly radical change doesn’t come. But they make serious mistakes in their judgment and prescription. They warn of “punitive,” “oppressive” levels of taxation — an 80 percent upper marginal rate with a low upper-bracket threshold — as a potentiality if their upper class doesn’t self-correct. But those levels of taxation wouldn’t be levied to punish or oppress; it would be to redistribute their collected wealth to the rest of us. Sharing isn’t being punished.

Second, they propose that the change has to come from the capitalists themselves, that some sort of agreement would be reached to willfully raise wages significantly in the absence of governmental mandate. This seems to ignore fundamental laws of competition. Even if some degree of consensus was reached, any dissenters would gain a fantastic advantage over their competitors in the form of profit levels far exceeding those of their rivals. It would be asking corporations to enter the ring with one arm tied behind their back and face off against unrestrained competitors.

They seem to know this and concede that “the most obvious choice is our government” to guide and enforce the change. Every major gain against the greed that animates capitalism has been implemented by mandate: the minimum wage, the right to collectively bargain, the 40-hour work week, the weekend, and a host of other rules of the road that marked the post-war economic and civil peace.

“But the current Congress has been paralyzed,” they acknowledge.

And why is it paralyzed? Has President Obama not faced resistance to his efforts to restore a modicum of equality by politicians bought by the very class to whom Georgescu and Langone make their appeal? They might try not shoveling hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers of “pro-business” politicians who dutifully defy virtually any tax increase, regulation, and pro-union effort. Bernie Sanders forbids big-dollar donations of the sort sent to pro-business politicians of both parties, but they might consider, as I argued previously, working to elect him as a bulwark against the upheaval they fear. Sanders is merely proposing that we return to the bargain achieved in the 1930s and post-war years. I’m sure they’d scoff at the idea, but it’s not crazy. What’s crazy is to believe that capitalism can be saved by the capitalists themselves, like all lions agreeing to hunt without claws.

Article Link

Now if we could just get the message to the so called Conservative Wing Nuts we might have something going on here... 40 and friends what do you think?

I find it ironic that the very folks who brought us to this place now want someone to reign them in.

As a species, we keep making the same intemperate choices over and over- never learning from history... even though this crap has been well-documented. Centuries worth of evidence ignored each and every time because the new crop thinks they are somehow better/smarter/more deserving than the previous crops. Now this bunch wants someone to save them from themselves.... no, wait- they want someone to save them from US. Again.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"What a piece of work is Man..."

This is the greatest EE post I've ever read.

Just to be clear, we are talking about a guy (Bernie Sanders) who is so progressive that it is widely believed that he can't even get the Democratic nomination over the more centrist Hillary.. and you want to start by getting the far right to buy off on it? Baby steps my friend.

I think the CEO's are right, it took them a while to get to this point but if they can get enough of them to start. Many of us "commoners" have said for a while that if they don't fix it, somebody (either the public or the government) will fix it for them...

Now to the meat and taters...


I disagree. Sharing is a voluntary action, if the government is taking it and giving it to somebody else against your wishes, then it's not sharing.... let's use terms correctly.


This is where the people have to stand up... sorry, we have to play a part in this. If, for instance, Home Depot raises it's wages to $14/hour.. and Lowe's keeps theirs at $8/hour, we THE PEOPLE will have to choose whether we want to spend $3 for a 2x4 at Home Depot or $2.75 for one at Lowes. If we the people want change, then we have a job to do as well. Sitting around screaming that the CEO's need to do something and the government needs to do something while we are expected to DO NOTHING, is just wrong.

Second, it doesn't have to be just about raising wages. If you are worried you can't compete, then raise wages less significantly as a start and, at the end of the year, when you realize you have competed successfully, give large bonuses. Home Depot has half a dozen people at least making over $3million a year up to their CEO who made over $10million...


Ok, that line cracked me up.

It's not theft... it's redistributed sharing!

My politics ends at "leave me alone, and stop trying to steal my stuff".

I didn't say it was theft, I just said it was not sharing...

I think instead of having a federal minimum wage law that hurts small businesses that instead you should have a Corporate Minimum wage law or even have them both.

IF 15 is for min wage then 25$ per hour should be the min wage for for any worker at any position for a corporation. Corps normally will pay the least to make the most profit for the shareholders. Its the ridiculous demands of shareholder that have turned middle income to barely above poverty. By forcing corps to pay better than minimum wage it forces them to give more of a piece of the pie to their normally lower paid workers.

So because McDonalds is a big corporation, the fry dropper should make $25/HOUR??????... sweet Jesus, we done gone off the rails. We are going to pay the cashier at McDonalds $52,000 a year... That would certainly thin out the herd applying for college.


Yes, curse those people that would like to see their 401K go up so they can someday retire... evil shareholders making demands like that.

Think of being a CEO as kind of like being a college football coach... college football coaches don't get paid for having a 3.2 team GPA, a great graduation rate, no arrests, and winning 5 games a year, they get paid for competing for championships. CEO's don't get paid because they employ more people and pay the people a ton of money, they get paid because they turn a profit and grow the business....

Your point is well taken. Which is precisely why the government HAS TO enforce a minimum wage in the first place that is fair.

CEO's get paid to make money. We saw or know how that caused safety standards, anti-trust laws, minimum wage and unions to form. Some see CEO's as doing their jobs, some see it as greed that helps keep down the middle class. I can see both sides of that debate.

But history has taught us how business left to its own desires becomes a detriment to working people.

I think you are missing the point... something will be done one way or the other to level the playing field. I would think anything that brings back the middle class and the American dream is a good move.

Wow, people people are calling for tax reform...they sound just like Bernie Sanders!!! (like he's the only person calling for tax reform).

I've said for awhile that we need tax reform in this country. Both Democrats and Republicans have been talking about tax reform for the last couple years now...you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that isn't in-favor of changing the current system in some way. What they can't agree on is exactly how to change it. What I'm saying is tax reform is hardly just a Bernie Sanders's idea.

But please, tell me how raising the minimum wage is taxing the top 1%? Raising the minimum wage to $15/hour is nothing more than a tax on the middle class, plain and simple.

How is punishing success going to bring back the American dream?

If taking 70% of my paycheck is unacceptable, then how can I morally ask the government to take 70% of my neighbor's paycheck. The tax code has become a way to oppress the citizenry.

Kenneth Langone, the founder of Home Depot is welcomed to write a check for all he is worth to the Federal Government any time he wishes.

Billionaires who agree with him, bring your checkbooks.

So is Bill Gates, or Bill or Hillary (they've been putting millions in their pockets regardless of what Hillary claims). Trump, the Koch brothers, Soros, Buffet.

Problem is, all of them want "others" to pay more. Well, maybe not all of them. The dem's sure want others to pay more - just not them.

I would love to see a politician back his/her words with action. As it is, all we hear is "I think this" and we find out later they don't even hold themselves to those standards.

And yes, right now, I'm talking Hillary, with her "equal pay for women" when she doesn't even do that her self. And yes, I'm talking Obama...........his administration has been perhaps the LEAST transparent ever. Tax cheats thrive in his administration.

Again, I would love for ANY politician to hold to their word. Problem is, none of them do. It's "say this" then do the opposite. And people bite.

Hey, why is social security always threatened with running out of money, even though all working people pay into it, but we never hear of welfare running out of money? Seems odd.

I think we have to get past emotionally-based rhetoric and 'sound-byte talking points' to find the answer.

In a "Rush Limbaugh world," paying taxes is equivalent to 'punishing the achievers.'
In a "Bernie Sanders world," the same proposition is called 'paying one's fair share.'

As always, the (potential) solution lies somewhere between these two extremes of ideology.

Speaking only for myself, I can tell you this: I don't mind paying my fair share. Never have. Money comes, money goes... and I've never viewed it as anything other than just another tool in my 'Life Survival Kit.' I take the deductions I'm allowed, but don't instruct My Tax Guy to push the envelope of what's legal or ethical. If the local elections ask for an increase in millage for schools/education, I almost always vote OK... not because I'm a tax & spend demagogue, but because I abhor the alternative: throwing out the baby with the bathwater. (... one needs only look to at Kansas' current situation to see how destroying an entire tax revenue has hamstrung an entire state of its essential support services...)

For me, that 'middle ground' lies in the revision of the tax code.

I'm every bit as angered by GE's ability to pay NEGATIVE dollars in taxes... as other Americans are at seeing "welfare cheats" live off the hard work of others.

One example is at the top of the US economic food chain. The other is at the bottom of the US economic food chain... yet BOTH take from the Middle Class- who make up the lion's share of posters here at DT.

So... who is taking from us (Middle-Class Citizens) more?


Put a gun to my head, and force me to choose for All Of America: I'd say:

"Get the (unclaimed) money from those who made the biggest societal rip-offs first."

An unwed mother of 3 kids at the bottom of our country's social ladder is most certainly doing less damage to communal US resources than Haliburton, GE, and Boeing.... even if you do all the multiplication tables that include those like her.

Welfare (...which needs drastic reform, too....) costs us far less in lost public revenue than even a 10th of what should be paid by Big [Namethemyourself].

_________________


When Individual Americans see culprits, they tend to see those whom they trust the least.

I'm as guilty as anyone else, when I make this blanket statement. BUT- I'll go so far as to assert that Charles and David Koch are more savvy at subverting America's "shared pay structure" than some unwed mother named 'Shaniqua.'

Yeah.... I said it.

Up-front, and out loud.
At the risk of sounding "Politically Incorrect"... because THAT's the 'mind picture' we've all been conditioned to call up, ever since The Candidate Ronald Reagan used the term "Welfare Queen" in his 80's bid for the presidency.

So, screw it... I'm just gonna let things fall as they may here:

2M 'Shaniquas' did less damage to America's national fiscal status than 10 Big Biz CEO's ever did.

If another DT poster sees it any differently than this, it's only because he perceives a different 'enemy' than I do.

_________________

Change the tax code. MAKE THE CHEATS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. At the top and bottom of the income structure. If that can be started, the 'Welfare Cheats' will be forced to pony up their pittances... but the corporations will also be required to pony up the Billions that they've been allowed to shelter from the rest of America for the past 30 years.

I'm no Pollyanna. I know that the CEO's mentioned in this article aren't having a profound 'change of heart/soul' regarding their greed (and cleverness at skirting current tax law). They are paid to see the 'Big Pic'... and they're beginning to see a future that our current crop of politicians are too blinded by fat campaign money to recognize... a future that has been already predicted by many laypersons on this very board.

It's time we got past dog-whistle rhetoric like "punishment' and "corporate welfare"... and enact some common-sense solutions to this problem.

There is enough money to make things right for this country. We've had periods in our history when it worked just fine. The problem has always been folks who want to tweak the set-up to gain advantage. EVERY SINGLE TIME the balance of 'common sense' has been upset, it has led to dramatic episodes in history. Currently, our "state of the union" can be summed up in one word: imbalance.

Imbalance of money.
Imbalance of power/influence.
Imbalance of options.

When a CEO of a major Corp makes 200 times the annual income as his entry-level employee, the balance is messed up.

When a mere 15-20K people can influence the federal laws that can help them, at the expense of 300M other folks, the balance is messed up.

When a college graduate must spend the next 20 years of his adult life paying for the education that was supposed to give him that 'better adult life' his parents always dreamed of for him, the balance is messed up.

2015's tax laws have not always been America's Inviolable Policy since the "Days of the Founding Fathers." They are not etched into stone tablets brought down from atop a mount. They've evolved to this point, because the "Haves" have spent the last 40 years exploiting their CapHill influence to ensure that they will always prospers.... come what may for the rest of America.

Now- at the 11th (fk'ing) hour, they finally 'see the error of their ways'... and want to draw themselves (and the rest of us) back from the precipice.

Yet still, there are "little people" on fansite message boards who believe (and parrot) the talking points they used to dupe not only a substantial segment of America's population, but also the lawmakers who shape Public Policy.

________________

Whether we 'punish the cheats' or make them 'pay their fair share,' one thing's certain:

If things continue the way they have for the past 40 years, America is in more danger of implosion than it ever was from outside adversaries.



... and if we fall, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

Wow. . . I respect your honesty, but not your bigotry.

If you think Clemdawg is a bigot, then I can only conclude you're on a bigot hunt and you left your glasses at home.

Clemdawg,

I think the issue about taxes is simple on its surface. If I can take from you to give to another, I control both you and the person I give your money to. They become dependent upon my generosity with your money. Also, if you come for my money to give to another, what would be my motivation to continue to earn money for you to tax? The goodness of my heart, aka. I am okay paying my fair share, is not good enough. Eventually it is easier to take from others than to produce for myself. It has been famously said, I think by Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is you run out of other peoples money." The problem with the current tax policy is not the Constitutional authority to tax, but the use of the ability to tax to control social development. There is no cause for social justice in the Constitution as it is constituted today in government policy. Stop the entitlements or you will never have freedom again in America.

Actually that is exactly the point I was trying to make.. sorry if I didn't phrase it very well.

There's a reason why I placed words like welfare cheats and Shaniquas in quotes.

It's called irony.

One thing for sure is that the Middle Class is getting smaller and smaller and it's not because they are growing in net worth, it's because they are doing just the opposite.

So if a bunch of CEO's want to get together to stem the tide, I'm all for it. They pretty much got us to this point so why not have them turn it around.

Clem 99.99% of Americans feel this way... then somebody has to get around to defining what ones "FAIR SHARE" actually is... and that's when the problem starts.... and perhaps even more specifically, what that "FAIR SHARE" will be used for...


You are only looking at the cost side of it. Does giving GE $2 Billion in tax breaks cost us more than one unwed mother? Or 100 unwed mothers? Or 1000 unwed mothers? Yes it does. But the flip side to that argument is that GE provides employment to hundreds of thousands of people in the US, while it can be argued that this unwed mother of 3 on public support, provides virtually nothing to the US as a whole.

Also, while GE is ripping us off in income taxes, the hundreds of thousands of people who work there, mostly professional people, are paying all manner of income taxes.. GEs payroll taxes alone will run in the billions of dollars a year, then as its employees spend their money we have sales taxes, etc... so it's not like we are getting NOTHING from GE being in business. And this doesn't even begin to touch the people who are not employed by GE but benefit from it's existence.. As an example, Boeing has developed a large presence in Charleston, SC.. as a result of this presence, Charleston and Berkeley county are building schools, widening roads, building houses, building shopping centers, opening medical centers.. why? Because Boeing money is flowing into the area, they are providing jobs for thousands at their plants and touching many thousands more because of the money they are spending... Then there is the fact that my 401K has benefited from some of these very same companies making a lot of money, I'm not a power broker who owns large portions of these companies but I am a upper middle class guy who would like to retire someday, so I see a benefit there as well...

My point is not to defend GE or Boeing paying no income taxes if they have billions in profit, I'm not in favor of that at all. It's also not to imply that a single mom of 3 on public assistance is disposable and deserves nothing... My point is just to say that there are many, many, MANY factors at play here... and the final solution has to be about a whole lot more than just "who costs us more"...


I try to not view either as my "enemy".... Shaniqua might be raising the next Martin Luther King, Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, or Daymond John, she is not my enemy... the Top 10 CEOs have their own personal and corporate interests to look out for but have the resources to provide Shaniqua with a decent paying job if she wants it, they provide a lot of people jobs and they build things, which keeps me in business.... they are not my enemy.


I'm going to disagree with this. An entry level, near minimum wage 19 year old might make $20,000 a year... while the CEO of the billion dollar company he works for makes (200x that) $4 million a year. when you consider the level of responsibility each has, I don't have a problem with that at all. The problem becomes, for me, when you have CEO's who have outsourced their jobs overseas to provide fewer of those entry jobs and they aren't making $4 million, they are making $40 million... now we are getting to where I have a problem.


This I agree with.. so I will credit the intent of this thread which was to point out that some of those at the top seem to be realizing that what they are doing is unsustainable and want to be proactive in changing it.. so for that I am at least a little optimistic...

i've said before, i don't have a problem with the rich...well being rich.

what i have a problem with is that their squeezing money out of the middle class simply to see their savings account go up.

outsourcing jobs? they were making profits, but that wasn't enough? had to send those jobs overseas just so you can get that new Ferrari with your bonus money?

THAT'S why people are pissed off. it sucks because the same people, us commoners up to CEO's, are complaining about lack of morals in this country, always wanting to site the bible and god,

yet are totally fine with CEO's sacrificing the middle class for the almighty dollar.

i mean, conservatives complain about corporations and wanting to be patriotic and all this BS, yet are willing to vote for Mr. Face of corporations himself, donald trump.

Look, I see your point. At the same time, the middle class had no problem saying, "This shirt is $22? Oh wait, this similar one is $14. I don't care where it was made or how much the people who made it were paid, I'm buying the cheaper one because it's better for ME."

Everybody is playing the same game, just on a different scale. Us common folk have figured out that if we were wealthy, we would be able to say, "Ok, I have enough." But the fact is that most of us have no idea how these decisions are made and very few people get to that level and actually make that decision.

I mean look no further than the professional athlete, a lot of those guys came from the same childhood you did or I did or worse than both of us. One would THINK that they would be more empathetic... but they aren't. They turn down $12 million a year so they can go make $14 million a year someplace else. Do they care that tickets to the game are $130 and for a guy to take a family of 4 to a game costs about the same as a mortgage payment and most of the kids growing up like they did can't even afford to come see them play? No, they don't care. Do they care that kids are being paid $2 a day to assemble their shoes in some other country and then they sell them for $200 a pair and that kids are killing each other over them? While they are making millions from Nike or UnderArmor? No, they don't care. JayZ and Beyonce are worth over a billion dollars... do they care that tickets to their shows are $170 and the average person can't afford to go? No, they don't care.

So this notion that if the common man was to rise up into the .01% that they would act any different bugs me because history shows us that it isn't true. So while it bugs you and it bugs me.. do you think we would be any different?

i know for a fact i wouldn't be the same. i agree with you.

but that's not what i'm saying.

What i'm saying is when is enough just enough?

i mean, aren't businesses making MORE money when us commoners are doing good as well? cause we can actually afford the products from the companies we work for?

one thing that won't change is the fact that i will pick an american over anybody any day of the week.

for me, anyway, there's a difference between "lets make this guy work more hours so we get a better profit ratio, than "lets ship these jobs overseas so we can make more money"

thats a huge difference to me bro.

since we're talking conservative billionaires and issues:

MARK CUBAN: I want to be a Republican, but the party has one big problem

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-cuban-want-republican-party-144345793.html

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban on Tuesday weighed in on the status of the Republican Party.
In a Tuesday post on his Cyber Dust social-media app, the outspoken billionaire investor wrote that he would prefer to join the GOP but had an issue with the party's push for conformity.

"I would prefer to be a Republican," Cuban wrote in the post, which was flagged by The Dallas Morning News. "I want smaller government. I want smarter government. Just like most Republicans. Put aside that I disagree with Republicans on most social issues. The Republicans have a much bigger problem that will crush them in every presidential election until this changes."

Cuban lamented that those who disagree with the "consensus" were called fake Republicans.

"The Republican Party requires that all their presidential candidates conform to consensus," he said. "If you don't agree with every platform of the party, not only are you called a RINO, a 'Republican in Name Only.' You are considered unelectable in primaries and become a source of scorn on Fox News. That's a problem."

The "Shark Tank" star's desire to avoid party orthodoxy could be related to his recent praise for real-estate mogul Donald Trump, whom he hailed as "the best thing to happen" to politics in a long time. Indeed, Cuban even told Business Insider he would consider being Trump's vice president if asked, though he said he would probably decline the hypothetical offer.

>

View gallery
.Mark Cuban
(Steve Jennings/Getty Images)
In his Tuesday Cyber Dust post, Cuban also reflected on the meaning of leadership:

Leaders don't conform to the consensus. They create consensus to their vision and goals.

Leaders don't change their positions mid debate. They welcome scorn from the masses because it creates the opportunity for dialogue.

Leaders don't look backwards to condemn what has already been done, they look forward to create a better future.

Leaders are not dogmatic. They are principled and know that change is never easy, but when it's necessary, they must lead.

The Republican Party does everything possible to discourage leadership.

They want dogma.

They want conformity.

They want to conserve their romanticized past.

That's a shame. I wish they wanted to conserve the best of what America is today and find a leader that can take us to new places that make our future better.

I realize that's not the way politics work in this day and age. And that just proves the point.

"And btw, I know a lot of the same can be said about the Democrats, but I don't want to be a Democrat," he concluded. "Until things change, I'll sit in the middle and think for myself. Unlike the Republicans."

“Happiness is like a butterfly. The more you chase it, the more it eludes you. But if you turn your attention to other things, it comes and sits softly on your shoulder.”
-Henry David Thoreau

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
-Ronald Reagan

Did it ever occur to any of you that the reason they want to "fix" things, isn't to actually fix things, but to strengthen their power/position? People that rich will stay rich no matter what. We could have a full blown communist revolution, and they'd still be rich.

It's a Wednesday, not a "Crush CHSDawg's dream" day

But if that were to occur then that wouldn't be a communist revolution as communists don't believe in social classes, so anyone still being "rich" is not a communist, but a liar instead

"Ideological militance of whatever kind inherently disdains liberty and free will. Its vision of the otherness of each human being, of his unlikeness to us, is simplistic. When the other is a unique being, irreducible to any category, the possibilities of winning or netting him vanish; the most we can do is enlighten him, awaken him; he, then, not we, will decide. But the other of the militant is a cipher, an abstraction, always reducible to an us or they. Thus the proselytizer's concept of his fellow man is totally lacking in imagination. Imagination is the faculty of discovering the uniqueness of our fellow man."
-Ocatavio Paz

"The only thing we have to fear... is flying monkeys."
-Clemdawg

Extremely well said Clem! Bravo!

Money will not solve all of the country's problems but it will help solve most of them. The money is currently not at the bottom or middle of the economy but very much concentrated at the TOP! Nobody wants to punish success, but success gained via manipulation of government/laws and cheating... is that really worthy of such great rewards?

It's easy to abide by the law of the land when you have the money to change said law in anyway and at anytime you see fit. The rest of us get to either adjust or fail, because we have no real representation in the current government. That is not the America I grew up in! It's and Oligarchy plain and simple.

We all want a better life for us and the people we know. Nobody wants to be the one that has to suffer for people we don't know... BUT that its exactly what we are doing when we allow all the middle class jobs to shift overseas and our opportunities along with them.

Heck, many of today's middle class jobs would have been lower class or entry level teenage jobs in the 70s. We have got so used to making excuses and learning to live on less and to excepting that our life is supposed to be all work with little reward that we have basically become serfs to the fat cat overlords.

What happened to running a small mom and pop business that could make you middle to upper middle class (sometimes even more)... those opportunities barely exist.

What happened to getting a good factory job, or a job at the mill? Those good union jobs that a man could be proud of and raise his family on WITHOUT the need for the second income. They are all but GONE!

What happened to working hard and getting ahead? A second job used to be part of getting ahead NOT staying afloat!

What happen to close knit communities where people actually gave a damn about their neighbors? A place that was safe to raise your kids, a place where people took time to speak to each other on the street, and a place where we took care of our own (including those who were down and out)? Well today's economics and politics don't allow for much charity or consideration for others, do they?

Big Money stole, sold and traded these things away in the name of profits, period. If you want to make America great again, then we have to start where the most damage has been done and where those who did the damage are...

I don't care about taxes. I don't care which party holds office. I care about everyday people living in financial purgatory where the best we can hope for is that tomorrow won't be any worse than today. Many of us (of you) don't feel this kind of pain (yet) and I'm happy for you. But for millions of Americans this is reality.

I attribute many of our current problems to this root cause:
-crazy mass shootings
-kids not caring, being withdrawn and violent
-divides that keep us infighting all the time
-the uptick in racism, finger pointing and hate
-social unrest
-the creation of the welfare class
-fading middle class
-lack of quality education, healthcare, elderly care
-crazy inflation and run away prices on basic necessities
-crumbling infrastructure
-many many more...

When you shred the very fabric of what made us a great nation (the middle class), how can we continue to be great? Therefore I conclude that the biggest culprit in the downfall of our economy and the changes that have led us to where we are today is Greedy Profiteering, period.

Not tryin to dump on ya bud! Sorry!

It's not that hard for that to figure that out since that is basically what they are saying... they want to avoid some level of serious civil unrest, they want to avoid harsh punitive taxation by the government... I thought it was obvious that this was a self-preservation move by them... Kind of like "Damn, if we don't treat people a little better and act like we care, they might come take ALL of our sh*t"...

"... and Taco Tuesday's".

i challenge you to go to taco tuesdays.

then go run your marathon. i'll record it.

oh, you missed my adventure just before the Cleveland Triathlon two weeks ago.... the large Atomic Gyro from Best Gyros the night before the race.

It did not go over well the next morning

Fear me, for I have a Woot! flying monkey.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. "Shaniquas" obviously implies Black women. Out of all the words you could use to describe a female on welfare you chose a disparaging term to discribe a black woman. It's cool though, bigotry is still legal in this country.

Not that I was talking to you, but if you support the use of disparaging terms to discribe a Black woman, that's your right. As it is my right to call that person out. I'd appreciate it if you chose to attack me on someone else's behalf, at least let me know how it concerns you.

It's a message board, not a private one-on-one conversation. It concerns me in that I was reading the thread, saw your comment, and felt like responding. And I don't understand how one could read Clem's comments and infer bigotry. There were more than enough grammar and context clues to understand what he was saying. But it's neither here nor there. He can defend himself. I just think it's counterproductive to cry wolf in such matters, as it cheapens a very real issue that many wish to pretend doesn't exist.

I just Know Sanders creeps me out and he can't sing

I know you are relatively new here but Clem is a highly respected poster and most on here will give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm also pretty sure that his mom and his wife are black women so I doubt he would say anything intentionally disparaging toward black women in general.

Actually, I'm not new. I just read more than I post. I've noticed no matter the subject matter most threads turn into debates about religion or politics. Second, who he is or who he is related to makes no difference. All it tells me is he should know better. That's no different than Black people trying to justify the use of the "N" word, but getting upset when Whites do it. You can't turn a negative into a positive, no matter how much you may want to.

Clem is no more Bigoted or Racist than I am!

Got your back bud.

Whoa, easy there with your bigotry.

Here was the disclaimer:


Yes... I did it for shock value, and nothing else.
I guess it worked. A little too well, apparently-

And that's exactly the problem. You are clearly talking about a subject you know nothing about. I can understand if you attempted to stick up for your friend with some substance, but you didn't. Not in this response or the one before it. You may critique the man's grammar and sentence structure, please be my guest.

Now, whether you realize it or not "Janequas" is a disparaging term. Are you aware of this? If not that would make sense to me as to why you can't see my point of view, which means this can be a teachable moment. If you do understand it is not a favorable term applied to Black women and still justify your friends use of it that's your right.

So, which one is. It?

So says the man with the Hispanic Gardner. If you're backing what this guy wrote, it tells me everything I need to know.

Pretty much thought you already knew everything.

Didn't say I back up what he wrote, I am saying I back up the Man himself.

I like how you failed to answer the question. Which tells me based on the merits of your well thought out responses, you either are unable to have a civil discussion or you don't want to (which I find strange since you injected yourself in the conversation) Either way is fine with me.

Again, it's all about context. You're trying to argue that simply using a word makes it an act of bigotry, which isn't true in the slightest. For example, the president went on Marc Maron's podcast a few weeks back and made the following statement: "Racism, we are not cured of it," Mr. Obama said. "And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say [expletive] in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior." Is that a statement of bigotry, and do you view the president as a bigot for making said statement? As I said earlier, this sort of push to eradicate the use of words does nothing productive, and it only cheapens the very valid argument that bigotry is alive and well in our country. If going on a snipe hunt for words or phrases makes you feel like you're presenting a "teachable moment" to the board, I'd say go ahead, but I would certainly question the value of such exercises. Clem is certainly not a bigot, nor was his use of the word bigoted in it's context. His intent was very clear.

Or they turn into a fight over semantics, which this one now has.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, I've just followed Clem's posts for a long time and there is nobody on this board to whom I would give a longer leash and more benefit of the doubt than him.

So, you attempted to answer a question with a question? God bless you. Please enjoy the rest of your day.

I thank you for your insight. Straight and to the point.

You're just failing to understand Clem. He even tried to clear it up for you, but you've ignored the post. So I'll spell it out

"At the risk of sounding "Politically Incorrect"... because THAT's the 'mind picture' we've all been conditioned to call up, ever since The Candidate Ronald Reagan used the term "Welfare Queen" in his 80's bid for the presidency."

That's the quote. Clem is saying that because of the diphead (My words, not Clem's ) Ronald Reagan we've been trained to associate "welfare queen" with a lazy, fat, black woman with an African themed name. He's not endorsing the use with this statement, but critiquing it. Trying to show everyone how racial charged and ridiculous it is. Do you understand now? This is a really simple question and should have been cleared up long ago.

I read you loud and clear. Thank you for taking the time to clarify that for me. I guess that's what Jack was attempting to do in his own way.

Clemmy is not a bigot. Period. End of discussion.

Well... I'm glad we've settled this li'l dealy.

And... no worries, Victor. It happens all the time on message boards.

And to the guys: thanks for clearing it up in my absence. I just got home from 4 hours of quartet rehearsals, and was ready to explain myself to Dr. Doom. It's gratifying to see that y'all did all the heavy lifting for me.


So... we all good now?

Indeed.

j/c

I was scrolling another site, and found this quote.
Thought it was appropriate to the subject matter in this thread::




Loved me some Theodore ever since My Pops made me write a paper on him during a Summer break in late grade school-

A very interesting quote... but what happens when the ruthless domineering wealthy men also control the governmental agents? Where does that leave "the people"?

Where we are now.

Now there's a cautionary tale of being careful of what you wish for or vote for as the case may be.

I see only one problem with that thought process. It pervades all aspects of politics. Both parties and most if not all candidates. That may sound skeptical but the flow of money from corporations and special interests flows like water in the mighty Mississippi.

It floods to all candidates so no matter who wins, big money has a friend.

Correct.

Why do you think one party wants to let illegal immigrants vote? Power. Not for the illegals, but for the vote getters.

And why do you think the other party wants illegals here? Cheap labor. There's really nothing to point the finger at there. Each party wants them here for their own interests.

Not Trump, he wants them gone. Lots and lots of Army trucks heading south gone.

I was talking about the candidates who have a chance to win.

I think not. I think you were talking out of your hat in that first post and when I presented a Billionaire who wants them outta here, you talked out of your hat again.

Don't keep holding your breath BLUE. That will never happen.

And you absolutely know this how?

No wait! First look into that Magic 8 ball of yours and tell me if the Market will be up or down tomorrow!

Be sure and thank a Supreme Court Justice, today.

[badmexicanaccent]
Donation cap, we don't need no stinkin' donation cap.

Down.

You gots a 50/50 chance and them are good odds!

But he's pretty much dead center compared to most other 1st world countries' policies.

Hillary's not that popular because like her husband she's "Conservative Lite".

Not really, it could break even or stay the same.
But since China is still devaluing their currency, our market is going to react and most likely lose a few points today.

So the career politicians... We say we want to get away from them, but anytime somebody who is not one makes some noise, like Ross Perot, Donald Trump, or Ralph Nader, etc... we declare them unelectable and move right back to career politicians.

Do you really think Ross Perot was a serious candidate? If he hadn't stopped running, and then started running again I might agree, but it looks to me like all he was there to do was peel off enough votes that would've gotten Bush Sr. re-elected.

It's hard to tell because most of them don't get enough support to know how serious of a candidate they could be.. because at some point they all say or do something that is "not Presidential" or not PC enough and people (and the media) will turn on them

True, but back then Perot had enough to keep himself going all the way through if he had wanted. I remember him buying up 1/2 hour spots on all three (for you younguns, there were only three major media outlets back then) networks and the PC disease wasn't that bad yet (far as I can recall).

I'm not happy about that. Being a person who supports what I consider an honest, qualified and sincere candidate in Jim Webb, it pains me to say that the party insiders are the only ones that are electable.

I'm just using the same history you have pointed out to reach my conclusion.