It bothers me that policies that have had such an incredible impact on my and millions of others lives are decided so casually by white men with no real idea of the effects of their pandering to the wealthy. Shame on these assholes. Kind of like abortion, abortion was decided by people that came from money, that have never felt the panicky desperation from unplanned pregnancy. I will be fine, personally, I am making strides in my own life to be economically independent. But everyone else is screwed, and it is so frustrating to watch it happen.
The long-held philosophy of noblesse oblige, or the obligation of the wealthy to look out for the welfare of the whole, is dead in capitalist America. Pretty despicable when one considers that the wealthy have only gained their positions of privilege by siphoning it off of those they continue to dismiss as the "little people". Such is the inevitable result of money that can be accumulated and used as an instrument of influence and power. We need a new type of monetary system that does not allow such disparity.
It's not really a matter of the monetary system, it's more about what services are available, how much money people have in their pocket and how much taxes people pay. The people who have the money pay for the legislation that makes the rules and they stack up the cash. If you are willing to work you should have a roof over your head, food, and affordable medical care. They tweak the system so that people do not get that. They have 6,000 ft second homes in fort Lauderdale with 150 ft yachts outside of them and they whine like little Rush Limbaugh's the people are taking their money away from them.
Tim, you sound like a Libertarian with "if you are willing to work" Fred Koch, father of the Koch brothers was in the USSR in the 1930's building refineries and oil wells for Stalin. He liked what he saw so much that his son David's campaign included much of the USSR's social and financial policies, like a 100% gold standard which produced a shortage of money, an unending depression and a shortage of consumer goods, and food.
But mostly, addressing your comment, Article 12 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution which says, in effect, "If you don't work, you don't eat", so much for those that can't work or find a job, and they are legion.
How does that address the people day working 2-3 jobs just trying to make enough for basic needs. not sure why you think Tim is a libertarian. Look up the definition or read the Libertarian Party web site. It is the definition of a feudal society.
That's a good point... To qualify for the basics folks should have to work full time, not more, and only if they can. Some disabilities make it difficult to work a straight hours.
That was not the issue, as you stated it. The way you stated it sounded l like if you don't work you don't eat, and has nothing to do with working 2 or 3 jobs. And it is n't that some folk with disabilities find it difficult to work, most folk do, and they shouldn't have to work, not in this society not as rich as it is, or should be.
I had a 1st cousin, once removed, that bagged grociers and chased shopping card, Kevin was a prince of a man, sweet as can be, happy and with a memory like an elephant, he was fortunate to find an employer with Downs Syndrome. I had a niece who had Turners Syndrome, and had a Bachelors Degree in System Analysis, and found a job with Social Security as GS 13, and head of system analysis.
Downs is one chromosome too few, Turners is one too many, both have physical aspects of dwarfism,that make them hard to find a job, Downs have a low IQ, Turners are genius, Downs are happy and joyful while Turners are or can be hard and demanding. My niece was the latter Were it not for a kind employer and the government neither would have a job. Both are dead, both outlived expectations.
Lynn do you think I was born yesterday, I was a teenage Beatnik, hung around Diogenese lantern, certainly know what a Libertarian is. I checked them out at a local meeting in 1980, and a serf is bound to the land, regardless who the lord or lady of the manner is.
Tim suggested that if you don't work you don't eat, and that is Libertarian.
And stop feeling sorry for yourself and injecting your self into every situation.
Well I didn't exactly say if you don't work you don't eat. I qualified it by saying if you were willing to work or unable to work you still qualify for the basic necessities of life in my little world 😉 people with mental or physical disabilities are people who are unemployed and can't find work deserve the basics: housing, healthcare and food... And for their kids, a decent education. Those people should not be living in the bushes or in their car if they're fortunate enough to own a car... I don't know if that's libertarian, I doubt it. Our corrupt former president would probably call it communism or socialism that will destroy the country; I call it humane.
Thank you for the comment. You made precisely my point. It is the mechanics of the monetary system - the untrammeled amassing of tokens of imaginary debt into individual hands - that has allowed the folks you mention to occupy their positions of privilege. We need a system that, yes, guarantees every contributing citizen and their families a decent standard of living in accordance with our physical ability to provide such means, devoid of interpretations of whose role is more "valuable" to society (so much for the idle wealthy who simply play with other people's money). As you point out, such people make the rules that allow the excess. What we need is a grassroots movement to bring more equity and rationale to our distribution system.
Steve, or maybe what we need is a tax code that is more like what we had in the 1950s when people realized that huge profits are not a good idea and were taxed heavily. Everyone benefited from that. We need some other nations to go along with this for their own CEOs and corporations to curb the running to other places where they can stash their money and use it to still influence our political system and the systems of other nations too. We could do this, but alas, when so many members of congress and Supreme Court justices are bought and paid for regularly, it does not seem things will improve any time soon, that is unless there is an upheaval of people who have decided enough is enough.
The workers need to not let the wealthy take all their money - but I can't imagine everyone being self employed. Don't work for the Fat Cats. Define Socialism to be a good thing, again - or use a different word that suggests we can work together for the common good. I can't crack that nut - I can't figure out a way to fairness.
Yes, it is really tough to work through, but right now things are skewed toward the benefit of the Fat Cats. Good minds need to gather to find better ways WITHOUT falling prey to ideologies that sound good, but only make things worse…
I am not big on group think and cultish behavior… on the Right… OR the Left.
It's not about charity, Lonny., and your question is impertinent. As members of society we pay taxes to fund and support society. You know - things like health services, transport infrastructure, policing, security, pensions etc. etc. Part of the reason companies are able to make profits is that they operate in a stable society, so it is incumbent upon them to pay their fair share in support of it. Says me.
There are of course many ways to skin a cat. Sales tax, what we call VAT (value added tax), social insurance, inheritance tax, wealth tax, windfall taxes etc. etc. At the end of the day it's all about governments ensuring they have adequate finances to do what they want to do. US citizens may not have to pay State taxes, but they all pay Federal taxes, and that's where most of the money goes, and most of that on defence spending (that's a whole other argument!). And with all that there are certain principles that govern how taxation works, not least the issue of FAIRNESS, and that's when the arguments start. The main problem in the world as I see it is that for the last 50 years the disparity in wealth has been growing exponentially, and we are now at a point where the top 1% have absorbed 2/3 of all wealth since the start of the Pandemic. What's clearly needed is a system to redistribute that wealth to bring back hope and a decent standard of living to all, and in so doing to bring back political stability.
That was well said Angela! We need to be that change. Nothing we can do about the past, but we got more work to do for the future so it's not hurting our children. We need to be anti-poverty absolutionists and put kid's first, then work our way back from that. This society rewards the greediest and most self-serving. And it all goes back to a few white dudes with too much power and their fear of loosing it.
It is also that women, people of color, poor people and others don’t hold much political power in this country. So yes, it is also a white guy problem.
As long as we dont paint EVERY white guy as part of the problem … some like Bob are part of the solution… we should not let anyone try to make us NOT recognize that the power structure was almost exclusively composed of well-to-do white dudes. Just a fact.
Yeah, though, William, somebody here would like us to stop talking about the power structure being “ white dudes.” It is a nuanced issue.
I don’t feel all that good about people talking about the power differentials and making generalizations about “white people” either. I have never been “ white people, “ but I am a white person. SOMETIMES one CAN make a generalization about that…about what white people might be able to fully realize…fully understand the experience of and ramifications of .. but there is very little overall generalization that I think is true. And yet, an Asian friend and I talked about seeing the world through a “ white lens,” and that was eye-opening. The good part is, one can be aware of a white lens ( or any other lens), and one can take steps to see through a less restricted human lens, but it takes what we used to call “ consciousness raising” during the early Civil Rights and Women’s Lib days.
How we see the world and how we react to being tarred with a broad brush— or even splashed with a bit of tar that wasnt meant for us —should give us pause. Could be a time to reflect.
Not really, you know. Empires of the past have lasted over hundreds of years .. not just strong nations but EMPIRES…
The Us is currently one of the most stable and prosperous of countries with an exceptionally strong economy, but the Right is fooling with that and threatening our stability in the drive to attain more wealth and power in fewer hands.
People on these threads are typically not anti-capitalism altogether…just against the worst exploitation and laxk of regulation needed to keep it from becoming again an oligarchy that keeps the people in bondage to the wealthy few.
Solution…rules to keep it fair. D’uh. What we talk about all the time. The rule of law, BUT laws made by THE PEOPLE, of by and for us…not skewed toward a powerful few, and certainly not setting a dictator or « strong man” over us.
Apparently you believe in original sin. Are sins of the fathers inherited by their sons? Should I be required to feel shame over my gender and the color of my skin and wrong-doings by my antecedents? Am I absolved of that guilt if my ancestors fought to end slavery during the Civil War? If so, should women be required to feel shame for not teaching their sons to act as gentle men and for their daughters not standing up for themselves? You see there is a problem with assignation of shame and guilt painted with a broad brush on people who weren't there or even alive at the time injustices were perpetrated.
You can twist it into “ they are trying to make me feel ashamed of what my ancestors did,” OR you can recognize it as asking you to repudiate what your ancestors did and work to make our world a better place.
OF course it is an everybody problem. We need to spread the power around beyond just rich white dudes.
Martin, the problem with calling what we are facing "an everybody problem" is that it keeps letting the perpetrators of the rich draining the resources from everyone else seem like potential victims of what is happening. They are the greedy but also those who feel they are entitled because of what their ancestors did. Many have inherited money they have been able to use and abuse to get whatever they want and to do as much harm as they could as long as they came out on top. And, those involved in this inheritance are mostly white and male. They want to keep it that way. Men who don't fit the model don't get very far in business, so they mostly do and the process continues and mostly by rich white men. It is sad, but it is true!
You are correct, the sins of the father do not come down to the children,neither does their glory or exalted status. Thus all organizations like the DAR are a farce, invented by low lifes who need bragging rights.
But your examples are over reach and ridiculous.
Who is exactly behind the culture war that is destroying our democracy and turning into a dictatorship?
Not women,though there are camp followers a plenty.
Not Blacks or Hispanics and gays, though there are Quislings a plenty.
It is white men, not all, but were it not for white men, with complexes and pyschosexual hang ups and needs.
Trump never would have been. And the top tax bracket would be the same as in Ike's time.
Martin Mayland : "An everybody problem!?" Meaningless! That is like saying "All lives Matter" to those (Black and all People of color), who have been murdered dis-enfranchised, oppressed and underpaid ( or not paid at all) for centuries. Same thing when you object to pointing out the disparity and inequality for women of all races versus white men!
It's hard I get where you are coming from, especially if you are not from the States, but there is a strong link between white dudes and accumulating power at the expense of others. But we do need to be careful because white dudes need to be part of the solution. If one is weak skinned (no pun intended), they don't see what actually makes a unique human being apart of our shared existence and they focus on skin color. (Apologies if that was sloppily said)
Indeed. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, I dream of a world where people are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I'm for that although I have read where others have tried to walk the statement back. Certainly any dominant group will have done good things and probably very bad things, as well. This applies to all cultures, I believe. You are going to find sinners where you find saints. White men have done bad things- slavery for example. They have done good things- outlawing slavery for example. History is fraught with contradictory behavior. One hopes we are generally moving toward the greater good.
I dont think this conversation is all about what white men have done, good or bad ..
It is about them having ALL the power to do ANYTHING good or bad. And that needed to end…and needs to end even more, because it is still too prevalent.
This quote was, and still is, aspirational. We can't get there unless we collectively acknowledge and accept some hard truths (become woke). This quote from his 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail', is more appropriate. It can be applied to the scenario described in Mr. Reich's story. Democrats decided to straddle the fence for some 'negative version of peace', kicking the can down the road. Rather than do what was right for the majority, they exacerbated the issue, because they didn't want to deal with the potential backlash. We would still have slavery, Jim Crow and the like, if some people before you and I hadn't decided to accept the potential backlash that included death! And if we keep kicking this can down the road, things will continue to get worse to where it will eventually take the same level of sacrifice to correct the economic exploitation that the overwhelming majority of us face (75% - 99.9%). THE QUOTE- "I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."
Yes! Yes! Minorities and subjugated groups must continue to agitate for their freedoms. Relying on those content with their lot in life to make benevolent changes will most likely never turn wishes and dreams into a plan of action. I believe we are seeing an example of this in the current Middle Eastern War (as well as our cultural struggles in America.) Kicking the can down the road can be like trying to keep a lid on a heated pot that will boil over and explode from time to time. But, certainly, it might be a mistake to alienate those, at least, somewhat enlightened who may favorable to the cause. Certainly, MLK was voicing his frustration. The struggle continues.
Some cultures are irremedial and unchangeable, especially cultures grounded in religion and ideology. I have in mind,at the moment of Islam, Hindu,and Fundamentalist Christianity in all its forms, they are triumphalist, misogynist, homophobic and would exterminate not only unbelievers, but insubordinate women who refuse to be marginalized, infidels and LGBT
The word "rich" should be added to the descriptors. No aspect of a person is more influential in the magnitude of that person's power than that person's wealth.
Hey, ‘a few white dudes’ is an accurate statement, not denigrating ALL white men. The problem has been, and it has for too long been, that ONLY white dudes, or nearly always white dudes, got to call the shots in too many places in the world. Clearly it was not ALL white dudes, just all the time white dudes.
So climb down off your defensive high horse and recognize what the problem was… racism and sexism that put being a white dude ahead of all else. Especially a rich white dude. You can’t get away from the truth of it by being defensive and deflecting.
If the behavior fits the skin color stereotype : there may be defensiveness ; but if you are part of the solution, there should not be worries. No need for thin skin! Nobody chooses their parents or color! Or national origin or ancestry.
Should I not, reasonably and calmly, express my opinions in this forum for discussion. Can I not do that without being characterized as being defensive and on a "high horse." Actually, my main point, unexpressed until now, is that people should be aware when they are being hypocrites.
I do still disagree with your take on how talking about the historical and undeserved power of white men is somehow unfair to white men in general. There is no other way to address the historical truth of it.
Corporations getting Money from us as Incentives and Laws in their favor, of many, Elon Musk latest NASA for Space X for going to space.
Many Years back Monopolies of Corporations Laws not allowed. Today is ok to have Monopoly claiming advancement, job creation and so on as justified.
A lot of people do not see what is going on in our Economy, some seeing it ok for Job Creations, applauding how smart and good for Executives not paying Personal Taxes, not seeing how game is played. Stock market as it goes up or down they do not understand as how it like betting Corporations own Interest playing in a Casino.
I say to People in Debates. Think how much Power Google, Amazon, and others have or will have. Dearest now Google Phones.
Tell me, Martin, which group in this country holds most of the wealth and power? Who then is responsible for our current economic situation? It ain’t me.
Well, Jody, it is the wealthy and powerful who hold those things. Aren't we trying to move beyond broad negative characterizations made by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, religion, etc.? This is my daily struggle in trying to be a better person. It shouldn't matter that I am white and male anymore more that it should matter that you are what you are. I continue to encounter entangled prejudicial roots in my psyche. The work of being anti-racist, to put all these groups under one umbrella, is to be willing to do the difficult and sometimes painful work of pulling out those roots (like admitting I have been wrong, if only to myself, and changing my behavior) so the better angels of my being may flourish.
I agree that white men of good will should not be vilified because they are part of the demographic that has held inordinate power for generations. And sometimes those powerful guys did good things, and sometimes, not. But they always had the prerogatives…
What they need to recognize TODAY is that the rest of us, who are STILL struggling against that excess of white male privilege, would like the world to better recognize OUR skills and aspirations.
That is all. Not that white men are bad. All kinds of people are bad. We just want an end to it always being the well-off white guy in charge of our lives.
MAYBE the well-off white guy is the best choice to run something. OK then, but he should be chosen on a level playing field.
Saying that race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, or religion don’t matter any more doesn’t make it so. We still haven’t had a female president. I’m certainly not saying that all white men are “bad,” just that they hold most of the wealth and power in this country and around the world. That’s a fact. So we have to be honest and recognize privilege before we can start to change things. Wealthy people have privilege, white people have privilege, members of certain religions have privilege, men have privilege. If you’re a wealthy white Christian man in this country, you hit the privilege jackpot. That doesn’t make a person bad, just lucky. But if that rich white Christian guy uses his privilege to oppress or keep others down, yeah, he’s a bad guy.
Of course race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, religion or other designations do and will continue to matter unless we all, male and female, begin to wear burkas with voice adjusters. As for luck and being born into privilege, we have to consider that every good parent wants to provide the best opportunities for their families and children that they can. And throw in the pithy saying that birds of a feather flock together.
Thank you to everyone who liked and participated in commenting on my thread today. It has been valuable to me whether you agreed with me or not. I have more thinking to do.
Martin, yes, in the future, we can perhaps get there, but it is going to be painful. We can't get there until we fully acknowledge how we got where we are and work together to figure out how to make things right. The direction we take can't be just a male or white male planned direction. We must start the process, but there are too many rich and powerful white men who have decided they don't want to move at all; they are comfortable just where they are and too bad about the rest of the people. We have an overabundance of rich white men in Congress, state legislatures, on school boards, and 4 of the most stuck on our Supreme Court. Some others have joined the white male bloc and are looking for the kudos they expect from their "lord and master." All the folks in the meeting Prof. Reich described were white, only one wanted to do the right thing for the nation.
Martin, when one group is mostly in power and the truth is told about that group, it is not denigrating. It is mostly white men who have shaped our current tax code to make sure that huge corporations can practically rule and siphon off as much as they want from everyone else. Those are mostly white-owned and run. It is mostly white men who have declared abortion illegal in many states even though they will NEVER become pregnant (with the help of a few white women), and it is white men who have done a lot of harm, thinking they are better, smarter, more clever, more deserving, more of everything than anyone else. We need more white men to step up and say "enough!" we are going to stop taking away people's voting and other rights and stop fretting over needing to own guns. We are going to work for the rest of our lives to stop global warming and end poverty in the world. Of course, there are some white men doing that now, but not enough of them.
Correct, but why put white as part of the lable for a correction? Just say all persons who's income are above--- are subject to these new rules. (Including the "corporate persons"
I don't mean to quibble, Martin, but Systematic mentioned "a bunch of rich men who don't even understand the basics of female anatomy". She didn't mention whiteness: That's a jump YOU made. She mentioned "rich" which gives them the power to decide as they wish and the statement that these rich men don't understand the basics of female anatomy, that is also a correct statement, proven true by the idiotic and horrendous laws they passed against abortions and women in general.
I forgive them their gender but not their willful ignorance, after they were told, so many times to not touch Roes V Wade.
Being pre-judiced is different: If we don't know the record of a politician and we say I don't like him or her because that's what I heard, somewhere, then yes, that is being prejudiced. If I say I don't want a pussy grabber for President, I am relying on a proven and stated fact, by Trump himself that he is a pussy grabber. That is not being prejudiced. So no. I don't believe that you are prejudiced against radically conservative Republicans.
It isn’t racist; it’s fact. Rich white men have ruled this country since its inception. Pointing that out doesn’t demean the millions of white men who disagree with those rulings.
It is not funny, not at all Ryan, but I know what you mean. Phuckwits like Trump and his cult can dish it out, but not take it. A prime example is Elon Musk, who in a TV interview told Walmart, Amazon, etc to GFY, three times. Trump lies about everyone and every thing, but when he is called out, he explodes and threatens revenge.
It is the same for the Billionaires, the Plutocrats, the Oligarchs. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Except it is white landed upper class men who wrote the founding documents and created a constitution that was designed to serve them, without regard to unlanded men, women, natives and slaves.
Stating that it is racist to blame white men is a stretch white men is not a race
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
And just who do you think the vast majority of consciousless billionaires, Republicans and MAGAts are. Women, POC, LGBT, Hispanics?
No they are white men. Just like me
I am not outraged like you are, because the shoe doesn't fit, but it sure does fit on you.
I am not outraged so I don't accept that label. Prejudices taken from opinions on a group and applied to an individual are racist. You, sir, have judged me and my shoes. I am returning the judgement. You are racist.
I was referring to the use of "white men" in the comment I was commenting on. I don't believe Reich is a racist. I believe he is a good man trying to be better. I also acknowledge that he is a politician and that there is some baggage that comes with that. Sometimes, stereotypes can be useful. Wisdom comes with knowing when to discard them.
Reich didn't say 'white men', but he could have. The discussion took place in the Clinton era 1993-2001 in which the majority of corporate power was indeed held by White Men....thankfully the top has shifted, but not the attitudes towards taxing the rich and super rich.
Unfortunately, many of the wealthy are able to use their riches to influence politicians to act to their benefit it seems more often than not. What is the purpose of government? Is it to improve the lot of its citizens for the greater good or is it to manage the herd on behalf of the already wealthy?
Historically, I believe the second alternative is what has been widely accepted. It is instructive to recognize the tenacity with which many in the lower classes staunchly adhered to the principle that everyone was born into the social stratum to which they belonged; the workers were born to be workers, the masters to be masters, divine right of kings and all. Someone trying to rise above their "place in life" was not only shoved down from above but also vigorously pulled down by their "peers".
Yes. Enlightenment ideals were first begun to be applied as the American Dream was being created. It was bound to be a struggle against entrenched belief systems. The struggle continues...
THE ENEMY INSURRECTIONIST ARE AT THE GATE, DEFEAT TREASONOUS , TERRORIST, AND CON REPUBLICONS EVERYWHERE AND JAIL CORRUPT AND TRAITOR RTRUMP AND CRONIES. VOTE DEMOCRATIC , AND RESTORE DEMOCRACY., DUMP CAREER CRIMINAL RTRUMP AND CRONIES, LOCK HIM UP AND HIS CRIMINAL CRONIES.
The term "economically independent is illusory." When Germany devalued its currency prior to WWII, people with wheelbarrows full of German deutschmarks were losing their wheelbarrows to thieves who left the worthless currency behind in favor of something tangible. We are at the mercy (?) of those who dictate economic policy and the valuation of commodities necessary to life. As we have seen far too often, our access to goods and services can be severely curtailed by those setting the prices according to their uncontrolled profit margins (the most recent unjustified runaway inflation is an example). THAT is what we are talking about, access to goods and services, not empty tokens of debt.
It bothers me that policies that have had such an incredible impact on my and millions of others lives are decided so casually by white men with no real idea of the effects of their pandering to the wealthy. Shame on these assholes. Kind of like abortion, abortion was decided by people that came from money, that have never felt the panicky desperation from unplanned pregnancy. I will be fine, personally, I am making strides in my own life to be economically independent. But everyone else is screwed, and it is so frustrating to watch it happen.
The long-held philosophy of noblesse oblige, or the obligation of the wealthy to look out for the welfare of the whole, is dead in capitalist America. Pretty despicable when one considers that the wealthy have only gained their positions of privilege by siphoning it off of those they continue to dismiss as the "little people". Such is the inevitable result of money that can be accumulated and used as an instrument of influence and power. We need a new type of monetary system that does not allow such disparity.
It's not really a matter of the monetary system, it's more about what services are available, how much money people have in their pocket and how much taxes people pay. The people who have the money pay for the legislation that makes the rules and they stack up the cash. If you are willing to work you should have a roof over your head, food, and affordable medical care. They tweak the system so that people do not get that. They have 6,000 ft second homes in fort Lauderdale with 150 ft yachts outside of them and they whine like little Rush Limbaugh's the people are taking their money away from them.
"He who has the gold rules." (the golden rule)
Dah!
Tim, you sound like a Libertarian with "if you are willing to work" Fred Koch, father of the Koch brothers was in the USSR in the 1930's building refineries and oil wells for Stalin. He liked what he saw so much that his son David's campaign included much of the USSR's social and financial policies, like a 100% gold standard which produced a shortage of money, an unending depression and a shortage of consumer goods, and food.
But mostly, addressing your comment, Article 12 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution which says, in effect, "If you don't work, you don't eat", so much for those that can't work or find a job, and they are legion.
How does that address the people day working 2-3 jobs just trying to make enough for basic needs. not sure why you think Tim is a libertarian. Look up the definition or read the Libertarian Party web site. It is the definition of a feudal society.
That's a good point... To qualify for the basics folks should have to work full time, not more, and only if they can. Some disabilities make it difficult to work a straight hours.
That was not the issue, as you stated it. The way you stated it sounded l like if you don't work you don't eat, and has nothing to do with working 2 or 3 jobs. And it is n't that some folk with disabilities find it difficult to work, most folk do, and they shouldn't have to work, not in this society not as rich as it is, or should be.
I had a 1st cousin, once removed, that bagged grociers and chased shopping card, Kevin was a prince of a man, sweet as can be, happy and with a memory like an elephant, he was fortunate to find an employer with Downs Syndrome. I had a niece who had Turners Syndrome, and had a Bachelors Degree in System Analysis, and found a job with Social Security as GS 13, and head of system analysis.
Downs is one chromosome too few, Turners is one too many, both have physical aspects of dwarfism,that make them hard to find a job, Downs have a low IQ, Turners are genius, Downs are happy and joyful while Turners are or can be hard and demanding. My niece was the latter Were it not for a kind employer and the government neither would have a job. Both are dead, both outlived expectations.
Lynn do you think I was born yesterday, I was a teenage Beatnik, hung around Diogenese lantern, certainly know what a Libertarian is. I checked them out at a local meeting in 1980, and a serf is bound to the land, regardless who the lord or lady of the manner is.
Tim suggested that if you don't work you don't eat, and that is Libertarian.
And stop feeling sorry for yourself and injecting your self into every situation.
Well I didn't exactly say if you don't work you don't eat. I qualified it by saying if you were willing to work or unable to work you still qualify for the basic necessities of life in my little world 😉 people with mental or physical disabilities are people who are unemployed and can't find work deserve the basics: housing, healthcare and food... And for their kids, a decent education. Those people should not be living in the bushes or in their car if they're fortunate enough to own a car... I don't know if that's libertarian, I doubt it. Our corrupt former president would probably call it communism or socialism that will destroy the country; I call it humane.
Libertarian is utopian and illogical.
Thank you for the comment. You made precisely my point. It is the mechanics of the monetary system - the untrammeled amassing of tokens of imaginary debt into individual hands - that has allowed the folks you mention to occupy their positions of privilege. We need a system that, yes, guarantees every contributing citizen and their families a decent standard of living in accordance with our physical ability to provide such means, devoid of interpretations of whose role is more "valuable" to society (so much for the idle wealthy who simply play with other people's money). As you point out, such people make the rules that allow the excess. What we need is a grassroots movement to bring more equity and rationale to our distribution system.
Whatever that response was suppose to be it was childish, something you would find on Tik Tok, not at all mature or serious, Wilson.
Steve, or maybe what we need is a tax code that is more like what we had in the 1950s when people realized that huge profits are not a good idea and were taxed heavily. Everyone benefited from that. We need some other nations to go along with this for their own CEOs and corporations to curb the running to other places where they can stash their money and use it to still influence our political system and the systems of other nations too. We could do this, but alas, when so many members of congress and Supreme Court justices are bought and paid for regularly, it does not seem things will improve any time soon, that is unless there is an upheaval of people who have decided enough is enough.
Ah, yes, but how to structure one, there’s the rub.
Flip the law. Limit the first million of shares and tax income above that.
It's tough to flip it when it's owned by the wealthy.
I have a saying
Big corporations are the anvil.
Citizens United is the hammer.
We are the ingots.
Park bench economist here.
The workers need to not let the wealthy take all their money - but I can't imagine everyone being self employed. Don't work for the Fat Cats. Define Socialism to be a good thing, again - or use a different word that suggests we can work together for the common good. I can't crack that nut - I can't figure out a way to fairness.
Yes, it is really tough to work through, but right now things are skewed toward the benefit of the Fat Cats. Good minds need to gather to find better ways WITHOUT falling prey to ideologies that sound good, but only make things worse…
I am not big on group think and cultish behavior… on the Right… OR the Left.
How about taking the money out of politics!! Is that not the root of the problem?
Can we vote them out? Who owns the Electoral College voters anyway?
It is the root of the vast majority of our problems. However, there are too many taking money out of politics to take money out of politics.
Exactly right. The more money the super-rich make from society, the less they feel they owe it.
It's not about charity, Lonny., and your question is impertinent. As members of society we pay taxes to fund and support society. You know - things like health services, transport infrastructure, policing, security, pensions etc. etc. Part of the reason companies are able to make profits is that they operate in a stable society, so it is incumbent upon them to pay their fair share in support of it. Says me.
There are of course many ways to skin a cat. Sales tax, what we call VAT (value added tax), social insurance, inheritance tax, wealth tax, windfall taxes etc. etc. At the end of the day it's all about governments ensuring they have adequate finances to do what they want to do. US citizens may not have to pay State taxes, but they all pay Federal taxes, and that's where most of the money goes, and most of that on defence spending (that's a whole other argument!). And with all that there are certain principles that govern how taxation works, not least the issue of FAIRNESS, and that's when the arguments start. The main problem in the world as I see it is that for the last 50 years the disparity in wealth has been growing exponentially, and we are now at a point where the top 1% have absorbed 2/3 of all wealth since the start of the Pandemic. What's clearly needed is a system to redistribute that wealth to bring back hope and a decent standard of living to all, and in so doing to bring back political stability.
That was well said Angela! We need to be that change. Nothing we can do about the past, but we got more work to do for the future so it's not hurting our children. We need to be anti-poverty absolutionists and put kid's first, then work our way back from that. This society rewards the greediest and most self-serving. And it all goes back to a few white dudes with too much power and their fear of loosing it.
It's like sports. The Super Bowl creates a winner, and 31 losers. People are okay with that.
Denigrating white men as a group is as racist or prejudicial as characterizing any other racial or ethnic group or gender negatively.
Hey, Bob is a white guy! So are a lot of other good-hearted, kind people. The problem is not whiteness or maleness, it is greed and lack of empathy.
It is also that women, people of color, poor people and others don’t hold much political power in this country. So yes, it is also a white guy problem.
As long as we dont paint EVERY white guy as part of the problem … some like Bob are part of the solution… we should not let anyone try to make us NOT recognize that the power structure was almost exclusively composed of well-to-do white dudes. Just a fact.
Nobody is Pat. I don't take exception, because the shoe doesn't fit.
There is saying in the south "Stuck pigs squeal" I ain't squealing.
Yeah, though, William, somebody here would like us to stop talking about the power structure being “ white dudes.” It is a nuanced issue.
I don’t feel all that good about people talking about the power differentials and making generalizations about “white people” either. I have never been “ white people, “ but I am a white person. SOMETIMES one CAN make a generalization about that…about what white people might be able to fully realize…fully understand the experience of and ramifications of .. but there is very little overall generalization that I think is true. And yet, an Asian friend and I talked about seeing the world through a “ white lens,” and that was eye-opening. The good part is, one can be aware of a white lens ( or any other lens), and one can take steps to see through a less restricted human lens, but it takes what we used to call “ consciousness raising” during the early Civil Rights and Women’s Lib days.
How we see the world and how we react to being tarred with a broad brush— or even splashed with a bit of tar that wasnt meant for us —should give us pause. Could be a time to reflect.
Not really, you know. Empires of the past have lasted over hundreds of years .. not just strong nations but EMPIRES…
The Us is currently one of the most stable and prosperous of countries with an exceptionally strong economy, but the Right is fooling with that and threatening our stability in the drive to attain more wealth and power in fewer hands.
People on these threads are typically not anti-capitalism altogether…just against the worst exploitation and laxk of regulation needed to keep it from becoming again an oligarchy that keeps the people in bondage to the wealthy few.
Solution…rules to keep it fair. D’uh. What we talk about all the time. The rule of law, BUT laws made by THE PEOPLE, of by and for us…not skewed toward a powerful few, and certainly not setting a dictator or « strong man” over us.
Apparently you believe in original sin. Are sins of the fathers inherited by their sons? Should I be required to feel shame over my gender and the color of my skin and wrong-doings by my antecedents? Am I absolved of that guilt if my ancestors fought to end slavery during the Civil War? If so, should women be required to feel shame for not teaching their sons to act as gentle men and for their daughters not standing up for themselves? You see there is a problem with assignation of shame and guilt painted with a broad brush on people who weren't there or even alive at the time injustices were perpetrated.
I would say, so yes, it is an everybody problem.
You can twist it into “ they are trying to make me feel ashamed of what my ancestors did,” OR you can recognize it as asking you to repudiate what your ancestors did and work to make our world a better place.
OF course it is an everybody problem. We need to spread the power around beyond just rich white dudes.
Thank you Pat, for spelling your point out plainly for Martin's benefit.
Now that I agree with.
I agree. More love, less hatred. More equality, less oppression. More freedom, less subjugation. More understanding, less hypocrisy.
Martin, the problem with calling what we are facing "an everybody problem" is that it keeps letting the perpetrators of the rich draining the resources from everyone else seem like potential victims of what is happening. They are the greedy but also those who feel they are entitled because of what their ancestors did. Many have inherited money they have been able to use and abuse to get whatever they want and to do as much harm as they could as long as they came out on top. And, those involved in this inheritance are mostly white and male. They want to keep it that way. Men who don't fit the model don't get very far in business, so they mostly do and the process continues and mostly by rich white men. It is sad, but it is true!
You know nothing about me or my personal struggles. Do you want me to feel shame on behalf of white men?
You are correct, the sins of the father do not come down to the children,neither does their glory or exalted status. Thus all organizations like the DAR are a farce, invented by low lifes who need bragging rights.
But your examples are over reach and ridiculous.
Who is exactly behind the culture war that is destroying our democracy and turning into a dictatorship?
Not women,though there are camp followers a plenty.
Not Blacks or Hispanics and gays, though there are Quislings a plenty.
It is white men, not all, but were it not for white men, with complexes and pyschosexual hang ups and needs.
Trump never would have been. And the top tax bracket would be the same as in Ike's time.
Martin Mayland : "An everybody problem!?" Meaningless! That is like saying "All lives Matter" to those (Black and all People of color), who have been murdered dis-enfranchised, oppressed and underpaid ( or not paid at all) for centuries. Same thing when you object to pointing out the disparity and inequality for women of all races versus white men!
Exactly Jody.
It's hard I get where you are coming from, especially if you are not from the States, but there is a strong link between white dudes and accumulating power at the expense of others. But we do need to be careful because white dudes need to be part of the solution. If one is weak skinned (no pun intended), they don't see what actually makes a unique human being apart of our shared existence and they focus on skin color. (Apologies if that was sloppily said)
Indeed. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, I dream of a world where people are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I'm for that although I have read where others have tried to walk the statement back. Certainly any dominant group will have done good things and probably very bad things, as well. This applies to all cultures, I believe. You are going to find sinners where you find saints. White men have done bad things- slavery for example. They have done good things- outlawing slavery for example. History is fraught with contradictory behavior. One hopes we are generally moving toward the greater good.
I dont think this conversation is all about what white men have done, good or bad ..
It is about them having ALL the power to do ANYTHING good or bad. And that needed to end…and needs to end even more, because it is still too prevalent.
Absolutely. Amen.
This quote was, and still is, aspirational. We can't get there unless we collectively acknowledge and accept some hard truths (become woke). This quote from his 'Letter from a Birmingham Jail', is more appropriate. It can be applied to the scenario described in Mr. Reich's story. Democrats decided to straddle the fence for some 'negative version of peace', kicking the can down the road. Rather than do what was right for the majority, they exacerbated the issue, because they didn't want to deal with the potential backlash. We would still have slavery, Jim Crow and the like, if some people before you and I hadn't decided to accept the potential backlash that included death! And if we keep kicking this can down the road, things will continue to get worse to where it will eventually take the same level of sacrifice to correct the economic exploitation that the overwhelming majority of us face (75% - 99.9%). THE QUOTE- "I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."
Yes! Yes! Minorities and subjugated groups must continue to agitate for their freedoms. Relying on those content with their lot in life to make benevolent changes will most likely never turn wishes and dreams into a plan of action. I believe we are seeing an example of this in the current Middle Eastern War (as well as our cultural struggles in America.) Kicking the can down the road can be like trying to keep a lid on a heated pot that will boil over and explode from time to time. But, certainly, it might be a mistake to alienate those, at least, somewhat enlightened who may favorable to the cause. Certainly, MLK was voicing his frustration. The struggle continues.
Some cultures are irremedial and unchangeable, especially cultures grounded in religion and ideology. I have in mind,at the moment of Islam, Hindu,and Fundamentalist Christianity in all its forms, they are triumphalist, misogynist, homophobic and would exterminate not only unbelievers, but insubordinate women who refuse to be marginalized, infidels and LGBT
The word "rich" should be added to the descriptors. No aspect of a person is more influential in the magnitude of that person's power than that person's wealth.
Hey, ‘a few white dudes’ is an accurate statement, not denigrating ALL white men. The problem has been, and it has for too long been, that ONLY white dudes, or nearly always white dudes, got to call the shots in too many places in the world. Clearly it was not ALL white dudes, just all the time white dudes.
So climb down off your defensive high horse and recognize what the problem was… racism and sexism that put being a white dude ahead of all else. Especially a rich white dude. You can’t get away from the truth of it by being defensive and deflecting.
If the behavior fits the skin color stereotype : there may be defensiveness ; but if you are part of the solution, there should not be worries. No need for thin skin! Nobody chooses their parents or color! Or national origin or ancestry.
Should I not, reasonably and calmly, express my opinions in this forum for discussion. Can I not do that without being characterized as being defensive and on a "high horse." Actually, my main point, unexpressed until now, is that people should be aware when they are being hypocrites.
Sure.
I thought your tone was parental. My bad.
I do still disagree with your take on how talking about the historical and undeserved power of white men is somehow unfair to white men in general. There is no other way to address the historical truth of it.
Corporations getting Money from us as Incentives and Laws in their favor, of many, Elon Musk latest NASA for Space X for going to space.
Many Years back Monopolies of Corporations Laws not allowed. Today is ok to have Monopoly claiming advancement, job creation and so on as justified.
A lot of people do not see what is going on in our Economy, some seeing it ok for Job Creations, applauding how smart and good for Executives not paying Personal Taxes, not seeing how game is played. Stock market as it goes up or down they do not understand as how it like betting Corporations own Interest playing in a Casino.
I say to People in Debates. Think how much Power Google, Amazon, and others have or will have. Dearest now Google Phones.
Well put
Tell me, Martin, which group in this country holds most of the wealth and power? Who then is responsible for our current economic situation? It ain’t me.
Well, Jody, it is the wealthy and powerful who hold those things. Aren't we trying to move beyond broad negative characterizations made by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, religion, etc.? This is my daily struggle in trying to be a better person. It shouldn't matter that I am white and male anymore more that it should matter that you are what you are. I continue to encounter entangled prejudicial roots in my psyche. The work of being anti-racist, to put all these groups under one umbrella, is to be willing to do the difficult and sometimes painful work of pulling out those roots (like admitting I have been wrong, if only to myself, and changing my behavior) so the better angels of my being may flourish.
You are arguing a different point.
I agree that white men of good will should not be vilified because they are part of the demographic that has held inordinate power for generations. And sometimes those powerful guys did good things, and sometimes, not. But they always had the prerogatives…
What they need to recognize TODAY is that the rest of us, who are STILL struggling against that excess of white male privilege, would like the world to better recognize OUR skills and aspirations.
That is all. Not that white men are bad. All kinds of people are bad. We just want an end to it always being the well-off white guy in charge of our lives.
MAYBE the well-off white guy is the best choice to run something. OK then, but he should be chosen on a level playing field.
Absolutely. Amen.
Count me in Pat. I don't take umbrage with the accusation about white men, because that shoe doesn't fit.
Glad to hear it.
Saying that race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, or religion don’t matter any more doesn’t make it so. We still haven’t had a female president. I’m certainly not saying that all white men are “bad,” just that they hold most of the wealth and power in this country and around the world. That’s a fact. So we have to be honest and recognize privilege before we can start to change things. Wealthy people have privilege, white people have privilege, members of certain religions have privilege, men have privilege. If you’re a wealthy white Christian man in this country, you hit the privilege jackpot. That doesn’t make a person bad, just lucky. But if that rich white Christian guy uses his privilege to oppress or keep others down, yeah, he’s a bad guy.
Of course race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, class, religion or other designations do and will continue to matter unless we all, male and female, begin to wear burkas with voice adjusters. As for luck and being born into privilege, we have to consider that every good parent wants to provide the best opportunities for their families and children that they can. And throw in the pithy saying that birds of a feather flock together.
Thank you to everyone who liked and participated in commenting on my thread today. It has been valuable to me whether you agreed with me or not. I have more thinking to do.
Absolutely !!!
Martin, yes, in the future, we can perhaps get there, but it is going to be painful. We can't get there until we fully acknowledge how we got where we are and work together to figure out how to make things right. The direction we take can't be just a male or white male planned direction. We must start the process, but there are too many rich and powerful white men who have decided they don't want to move at all; they are comfortable just where they are and too bad about the rest of the people. We have an overabundance of rich white men in Congress, state legislatures, on school boards, and 4 of the most stuck on our Supreme Court. Some others have joined the white male bloc and are looking for the kudos they expect from their "lord and master." All the folks in the meeting Prof. Reich described were white, only one wanted to do the right thing for the nation.
Martin you just made the biggest mistake, one that I have criticized others for.
Personalizing the impersonal, with your objection and outrage, you are the stuck pig that squealed, the shoe that fit.
I have looked in the mirror. I suggest you do the same.
Jody, you're right. And, I don't remember hearing about women's or Latinx or poor people supremacy and won't.
Hoo boy. Talk about an immovable object that is inpenetrable to outside stimuli or influence.
Martin, when one group is mostly in power and the truth is told about that group, it is not denigrating. It is mostly white men who have shaped our current tax code to make sure that huge corporations can practically rule and siphon off as much as they want from everyone else. Those are mostly white-owned and run. It is mostly white men who have declared abortion illegal in many states even though they will NEVER become pregnant (with the help of a few white women), and it is white men who have done a lot of harm, thinking they are better, smarter, more clever, more deserving, more of everything than anyone else. We need more white men to step up and say "enough!" we are going to stop taking away people's voting and other rights and stop fretting over needing to own guns. We are going to work for the rest of our lives to stop global warming and end poverty in the world. Of course, there are some white men doing that now, but not enough of them.
I agree 100%, but he said "...a few white dudes...", not 'all white dudes', and not 'white dudes' in general.
Correct, but why put white as part of the lable for a correction? Just say all persons who's income are above--- are subject to these new rules. (Including the "corporate persons"
I don't mean to quibble, Martin, but Systematic mentioned "a bunch of rich men who don't even understand the basics of female anatomy". She didn't mention whiteness: That's a jump YOU made. She mentioned "rich" which gives them the power to decide as they wish and the statement that these rich men don't understand the basics of female anatomy, that is also a correct statement, proven true by the idiotic and horrendous laws they passed against abortions and women in general.
I forgive them their gender but not their willful ignorance, after they were told, so many times to not touch Roes V Wade.
Thank you for not quibbling. I am joking.
What was done to Roe v Wade was a betrayal of the highest order. Is it okay that I am prejudiced against radically conservative Republicans?
Being pre-judiced is different: If we don't know the record of a politician and we say I don't like him or her because that's what I heard, somewhere, then yes, that is being prejudiced. If I say I don't want a pussy grabber for President, I am relying on a proven and stated fact, by Trump himself that he is a pussy grabber. That is not being prejudiced. So no. I don't believe that you are prejudiced against radically conservative Republicans.
It is perfectly OK to not like bad behavior.
It isn’t racist; it’s fact. Rich white men have ruled this country since its inception. Pointing that out doesn’t demean the millions of white men who disagree with those rulings.
Funny how white men as a group routinely dish it out, but object when it happens to them.
It is not funny, not at all Ryan, but I know what you mean. Phuckwits like Trump and his cult can dish it out, but not take it. A prime example is Elon Musk, who in a TV interview told Walmart, Amazon, etc to GFY, three times. Trump lies about everyone and every thing, but when he is called out, he explodes and threatens revenge.
It is the same for the Billionaires, the Plutocrats, the Oligarchs. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Yeah, but it's kinda fun.
Except it is white landed upper class men who wrote the founding documents and created a constitution that was designed to serve them, without regard to unlanded men, women, natives and slaves.
Stating that it is racist to blame white men is a stretch white men is not a race
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
And just who do you think the vast majority of consciousless billionaires, Republicans and MAGAts are. Women, POC, LGBT, Hispanics?
No they are white men. Just like me
I am not outraged like you are, because the shoe doesn't fit, but it sure does fit on you.
I am not outraged so I don't accept that label. Prejudices taken from opinions on a group and applied to an individual are racist. You, sir, have judged me and my shoes. I am returning the judgement. You are racist.
I missed the part where Reich said “white men”. Good catch. He certainly IS a racist prejudicial bastard though. Thank you gentle reader.
I was referring to the use of "white men" in the comment I was commenting on. I don't believe Reich is a racist. I believe he is a good man trying to be better. I also acknowledge that he is a politician and that there is some baggage that comes with that. Sometimes, stereotypes can be useful. Wisdom comes with knowing when to discard them.
Reich didn't say 'white men', but he could have. The discussion took place in the Clinton era 1993-2001 in which the majority of corporate power was indeed held by White Men....thankfully the top has shifted, but not the attitudes towards taxing the rich and super rich.
Unfortunately, many of the wealthy are able to use their riches to influence politicians to act to their benefit it seems more often than not. What is the purpose of government? Is it to improve the lot of its citizens for the greater good or is it to manage the herd on behalf of the already wealthy?
Historically, I believe the second alternative is what has been widely accepted. It is instructive to recognize the tenacity with which many in the lower classes staunchly adhered to the principle that everyone was born into the social stratum to which they belonged; the workers were born to be workers, the masters to be masters, divine right of kings and all. Someone trying to rise above their "place in life" was not only shoved down from above but also vigorously pulled down by their "peers".
Yes. Enlightenment ideals were first begun to be applied as the American Dream was being created. It was bound to be a struggle against entrenched belief systems. The struggle continues...
"Pulled down by their peers" like crabs in a boiling pot.
Mike :Racist is an overused epithet, it has lost its sting. A white man can't be racist against white men.
I guarantee you that some of the anti-abortion people with money will find a way to get their daughter an abortion if that's what they want...
THE ENEMY INSURRECTIONIST ARE AT THE GATE, DEFEAT TREASONOUS , TERRORIST, AND CON REPUBLICONS EVERYWHERE AND JAIL CORRUPT AND TRAITOR RTRUMP AND CRONIES. VOTE DEMOCRATIC , AND RESTORE DEMOCRACY., DUMP CAREER CRIMINAL RTRUMP AND CRONIES, LOCK HIM UP AND HIS CRIMINAL CRONIES.
The term "economically independent is illusory." When Germany devalued its currency prior to WWII, people with wheelbarrows full of German deutschmarks were losing their wheelbarrows to thieves who left the worthless currency behind in favor of something tangible. We are at the mercy (?) of those who dictate economic policy and the valuation of commodities necessary to life. As we have seen far too often, our access to goods and services can be severely curtailed by those setting the prices according to their uncontrolled profit margins (the most recent unjustified runaway inflation is an example). THAT is what we are talking about, access to goods and services, not empty tokens of debt.