Theory of Capitalism collapses

[_Kevin Graham]

Essentially every point I have been making on these political/economy threads, is encapsulated by this well respected economist:

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

BY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ•

THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.

As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

===================

[_why me]

When americans wake up to the fact that they live in a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class we can then begin to move on to better pastures. I see no freedom in america since it is a two party state with both parties supporting capitalism.

[_MadMonk]

Essentially every point I have been making on these political/economy threads, is encapsulated by this well respected economist:

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

BY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ . . .

Many of the points Stiglitz makes here I have been saying for the last thirty years. If it weren't so sad, the current notion of how "high" taxes are would be hilarious. In 1958, the tax rate on the top income bracket was ninety-one percent (91%). Yet contrary to the current wisdom, the economy was booming, and American businesses were expanding right and left.

Today, the nominal top tax rate is less than thirty-five percent, and taking advantage of all available deductions and loopholes allows a taxpayer in the top one percent of income to pay an actual rate of about sixteen percent. The corporate tax rate is down to nine percent, and capital gains are taxed at a ludicrously low rate. Yet because the top one percent controls the American media, this is presented as a crushing burden on the economy. One gets the feeling that any taxation at all would still be felt as a crushing burden by the top one percent.

The saddest part of the situation is that people whose income puts them in the eighteen percent bracket (the lowest), actually pay over twenty percent of their incomes to the Federal government, when you figure in FICA and unemployment, taxes which the top one percent doesn't even feel, because they are applied to only about one percent of their income at most. If sixteen percent is a "crushing burden" on someone earning thirty million dollars a year, how much more crushing a burden is twenty percent on someone who earns a thousandth of that sum!

For those who believe that capitalism is ordained of God, here is the clearest example of Christian economics that I can find in the Bible, illustrated in two passages:

(1) Acts 2:44-45: All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

(2) Acts 4:32-35: Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

Can anyone seriously argue that the American economic system resembles this example in any way?

MadMonk

[_CaliforniaKid]

Many of the points Stiglitz makes here I have been saying for the last thirty years. If it weren't so sad, the current notion of how "high" taxes are would be hilarious. In 1958, the tax rate on the top income bracket was ninety-one percent (91%). Yet contrary to the current wisdom, the economy was booming, and American businesses were expanding right and left.

Today, the nominal top tax rate is less than thirty-five percent, and taking advantage of all available deductions and loopholes allows a taxpayer in the top one percent of income to pay an actual rate of about sixteen percent. The corporate tax rate is down to nine percent, and capital gains are taxed at a ludicrously low rate. Yet because the top one percent controls the American media, this is presented as a crushing burden on the economy. One gets the feeling that any taxation at all would still be felt as a crushing burden by the top one percent.

The saddest part of the situation is that people whose income puts them in the eighteen percent bracket (the lowest), actually pay over twenty percent of their incomes to the Federal government, when you figure in FICA and unemployment, taxes which the top one percent doesn't even feel, because they are applied to only about one percent of their income at most. If sixteen percent is a "crushing burden" on someone earning thirty million dollars a year, how much more crushing a burden is twenty percent on someone who earns a thousandth of that sum!

Amen and amen. This is very well said.

[_asbestosman]

I'm still trying to figure out what CaliforniaKid told me about the equal means to production which capitalists often miss by focusing on property rights. I don't believe it's right to tax the wealthy at 90%, but neither do I agree with the current situation where loopholes are exploited to pay very little while the poor pay relatively more.

I guess when it comes down to things, I believe I should do all I can to give my neighbors an equal opportunity to what I have, but I still feel uncomfortable using government to force my rich neighbors to give others an equal opportunity too. In that sense I do not believe in equal opportunity. I have a personal religious mandate to be charitable, but I do not see rule of law as charitable. However, I do believe taxes are a necessity and that certain government programs create a more stable, stronger society.

I believe I'm obligated to address inequality, but not by whatever means are necessary. I would say that the obligation is limited to what I give and what I do to convince others to do likewise.

On the other hand, if we allow the wealthy the freedom to move out, and we as a people decide to make taxes a bit more fair (goes up for the wealthy) I see no inherent problems with that. While I wouldn't call it a moral imperative that we must vote for the government do such a thing, I don't think it's necessarily immoral if we did. It would be what we as a people agree to, and we are still leaving an out for those who do not wish to participate. I hear Somalia has low taxes.

[_ludwigm]

(lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl)
adj.
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

Liberals think they are entitled to their way ONLY. Tolerance is not in their vocabulary.

One of us doesn't know the meaning of some words.
I know the word liberal, answers.com seems to agree.
What about your vocabulary?
.
Does horse means tapir?

[_Black Moclips]

Interesting points, and some of it, I won't disagree with. However, what everyone has to remember, is that the federal government is complicit in all of this. Kevin's article stated that this top 1%, the ubber rich folks, actually want this inequality. WELL GUESS WHAT? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS IT THAT WAY TOO. Liberal minded folks who think that the answer to these problems is transferring more wealth, power, and responsibilities to the federal government, and ballooning it to unsustainable levels (as we are seeing right now) are sadly mistaken. The federal government isn't the answer, its part of the problem.

Democrats are viewed as the bleeding hearts, caring for poor and disadvantaged. That is their power base, growing their ranks by always promising that group or that union how much they can get them. THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN MAKING THEIR POWER BASE DISAPPEAR, by actually improving people's lives and moving them out of the "dependent on government assistance" category. They know that when someone finally succeeds and is self sufficient, they usually want to keep their hard earned property and they drift from the left towards the center and right. At anytime when Democrats have been in control of government, has the plight of the disadvantaged become better? Have ghettos disappeared? Has education quality skyrocketed? No, no, and no. Despite the countless billions spent. And don't be fooled, they have their rich and famous cronies as well. Who did Obama promote to his inner circle on jobs and the economy? The CEO of GE, the same company that paid no federal taxes. Big corporations lobby Democrats just as hard for their bennies, and they get them. Reid, Pelossi, Biden, all the big names are in the same corporate pockets as republicans.

Republicans don't get a pass from me either. While I agree with conservative values and principles, Republicans have had their share of bad policy, ridiculous deficit spending, and corruption. They haven't followed core conservative values at all.
I hold equal contempt for all politicians (with the exception of a few, unproven freshmen). Because ultimately, if we have debt problem, they created it. If we have a tax problem, they created it. If we have bad policies and regulations, they created them. If there is waste and inefficiency, they created it and allow it. Bottom line - things are screwed up right now because all of the politicians want it that way. To think giving the government more authority, wealth and power will fix things, that is insanity.

[_Markk]

To think giving the government more authority, wealth and power will fix things, that is insanity.

Amen

[_mcjathan]

To think giving the government more authority, wealth and power will fix things, that is insanity.

Daily lurker coming out of lurker mode:

Government spending is so often (erroneously) framed as a partisan issue. Check this out -- very sobering:

http://www.iousathemovie.com/

back to lurking...

Jeff

[_Kevin Graham]

Interesting points, and some of it, I won't disagree with. However, what everyone has to remember, is that the federal government is complicit in all of this. Kevin's article stated that this top 1%, the ubber rich folks, actually want this inequality.

Yes, because it funnels more wealth to them.

WELL GUESS WHAT? THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WANTS IT THAT WAY TOO.

No, the Federal Government doesn't have any desire. Your boogey man doesn't exist. The Government is comprised of individuals and they do not sit around a large table for 50,000 people to conspire to take more power for themselves. This is the ridiculous image conjured up by FOX News and other Right Wing outlets. The problem with the government is that the 1% are legally permitted to bribe them. That's it. If you get rid of the lobbying and bribery, then government can do its thing without having to serve the special interests. As I have stated since day one, the best thing we could do in this country to enact positive change, would be to ban lobbying and make bribery illegal. But thanks to the Right Wing powers that be, along with the COnservative Supreme Court Justices, corporations were recently given unlimited freedom to donate as much money as they want for the political candidates they want, which is essentially giving corporations the power to shape, enact and execute domestic and foreign policy. They use the government of course, but it isn't the "Federal Government" as an entity that is acting as a dictatorship. The real power lays in the hands of the richest 1% who have the politicians in their back pockets. And it is only getting worse, as corporations have figured out teh best investment is to buy politicians who can then rig the system in their favor. All the principles of the free market are thrown out the window, and the irony is that this is being done by the very same people on the Right who pretend to want a free market.

Liberal minded folks who think that the answer to these problems is transferring more wealth, power, and responsibilities to the federal government,

That is a misrepresentation of the "Liberal midned folks." Stop watching FOX News for ten minutes and actually try listening to a LIberal.

nd ballooning it to unsustainable levels

Uh, you can blame your conservative Icon George Bush for our deficit, thank you very much. And the Right WIng politicians insist on keeping the Bush Tax cuts which essentially guarantees a continuosly rising deficit for the next decade. You can't just cut spending and say problem solved. If you're cutting your income, it offsets whatever saving you think you're doing by not spending. That is what the Bush Tax cuts do. It reduces Federal revenues in a time when we need them most.

The federal government isn't the answer, its part of the problem.

Again, these are talking points on the right that refuse to go deeper into the problem to explain WHY the government has a hand in this problem. It is guilty on in the sense that the politicians insist on acting at the behest of the hightest bidder. Again, ban lobbying, and politicians will be forces to act in the interests of their constituents, and not the corporations. When most people wanted a public option in 2008, the politicians balked. Why? Because the wealthy funneled tens of millions into their campaign cofers on condition that thet didn't support a public option. At the same time RIght WIng illionaires like the Koch brothers were financing a propaganda campaign trying to scare the hell out of everyone about Socialism. Suddenly a tea party is formed by Right Wingers who have the money to organize and instill fear, and FOX News executives sent an email to all its hosts telling them to refer to the Obama health care plan as "Government run health care," even though it later admitted that they knew it was no such thing.
The problem is the Right Wing fanaticism that is financed by the richest 1% and driven by fear, ignorance and greed. A dangerous recipe if there ever was one.
To suggest Government is the problem is an overly simplistic view that smacks of Glenn Becksim. The problems are more serious and more nuanced than that. And that is the reason the Right Wing answers won't work. They think that as long as they cut spending for every single government social program there is, that this will somehow balance the budget. What idiots! They're talking about cutting crucial programs for the poor that contribute pennies to the deficit when compared to the hundreds of billions that are spent for the sole purpose of benefiting the richest 1%. From going to war in the Middle-East so those with stock in oil companies can make out like bandits, to the idiotic tax cuts for the rich, who then turn around and pay FOX News to tell the world they're paying 35% in taxes! As has been mentioned alread, most rich folks do not pay that, and even Warren Buffet had the decency to admit it. He pays a lower tax rate than his own secretary! And this is what the Right Wing wants because they, more than the Left, are in the back pockets of the richest 1%.

THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN MAKING THEIR POWER BASE DISAPPEAR, by actually improving people's lives and moving them out of the "dependent on government assistance" category.

You make me sick with your ignorance if you think for a second the Right WIngers give a flying DAMN about the poor or want to help them improve themselves. There is only one available job for every five unemployed persons. Your only solution is to give more money to the rich so they can provide more jobs for the poor. Well, we tried that, and corporations have decided they're not going to use that money to provide more jobs. Instead they've decided they'll make money from cheap labor overseas, or from paying off politicians who will help secure a monopoly for them. So what to do now genius? Let the people just suffer? I know, let's make fun of them and call them moochers. Lazy folks who don't want to work for a living. That always helps. More than a few Republican politicians have done precisely that!

They know that when someone finally succeeds and is self sufficient, they usually want to keep their hard earned property and they drift from the left towards the center and right.

That is the stupidest thing said yet. If peopletend to float to the Right after becoming wealthy, it is only because they know that by voting for Republicans, they are more likely to be in a position to secure their wealth without actually having to keep working. So in other words, they are really the lazy ones. They don't want to work. Every Right Winger I know is all about making more money for doing less work. They are all about investing money in the stock market, or buying multiple houses and living off renters, etc. These people contribute nothing to society. They create nothing. They simply feed off the poor and watch their quarterly statements with a close eye.

At anytime when Democrats have been in control of government, has the plight of the disadvantaged become better? Have ghettos disappeared?

They will never disappear in a capitalistic system. Ever. Capitalism requires ghettos. In Capitalism, in order for one person to make money, another person has to lose money. And it only works when the workers are paid less than what they are worth. If a worker produces $100 worth of goods, his employer can only make a profit by paying him less than $100. That is capitalism. Taking advantage of those who actually produce.

Has education quality skyrocketed? No, no, and no. Despite the countless billions spent.

Education quality is always the same no matter where you go. What changes is the level of education acquired, and that is determined according to demographics. It takes no genius to realize that in wealthier neighborhoods, schools are top notch whereas schools in ghettos are poor. So the problem isn't government, the problem is poverty. And poverty will always exist in Capitalism. Always. Kids in wealthier homes tend to have two parents, guidance, and appreciation for education, etc. All the advantages the kids in poorer neighborhoods lack. To blame it all on "government" schools is just an idiotic Right Wing talking point that won't stand the test of scrutiny.

And don't be fooled, they have their rich and famous cronies as well. Who did Obama promote to his inner circle on jobs and the economy? The CEO of GE, the same company that paid no federal taxes. Big corporations lobby Democrats just as hard for their bennies, and they get them. Reid, Pelossi, Biden, all the big names are in the same corporate pockets as republicans.

True, and that reveals a problem with the laws, not the government. The government is run by greedy human beings the same as corporations. So naturally they're tempted with bribes, and are mnore likely to give in since in the context of government lobbying, it is legalized. But this is mainly due to Right Wing efforts. The Left has always been involved in campaign finance reform whereas it is usually the Right Wing politicians who oppose it. Why? Because they want to secure their own nest egg.

Republicans don't get a pass from me either. While I agree with conservative values and principles, Republicans have had their share of bad policy, ridiculous deficit spending, and corruption. They haven't followed core conservative values at all.

The more "conservative values" canard is a myth that can rely on no historical precedent for support. You now say Bush wasn't a conservative. So who was? Reagan? His policies increased taxes much higher than what we have now under the "Socialist" Obama. He raised taxes six times during his tenure and the wealth ratio and productivity ratios went completely out of whack thanks to Reaganomics. So what exactly is it that you think "Conservative Values" can do to save us from our problems? I'm dying to hear this.

I hold equal contempt for all politicians (with the exception of a few, unproven freshmen). Because ultimately, if we have debt problem, they created it. If we have a tax problem, they created it. If we have bad policies and regulations, they created them. If there is waste and inefficiency, they created it and allow it. Bottom line - things are screwed up right now because all of the politicians want it that way. To think giving the government more authority, wealth and power will fix things, that is insanity.

So what is the answer? The Right has no answers! All they know how to do is attack the government, because that is their boogy-man. And pretend we'd be better off without government! Attack virtually every social program that saves lives and improves the lives of millions, in ignorance! Give me a break. You shoudl thak your lucky stars we have a government, that while frequently derilct in its duties, has in fact established numerous controls and regulations that have prevented the American corporate dictatorship from completely overruning the country.

Did you know the true Conservatives want to do away with public education? Do you agree?