[Vision2020] The 1% in Congress
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 15 12:22:41 PST 2011
I knew my statement about not watching mainstream news would get a
response of some kind. I truly find it to be much wiser to avoid the
approved dog and pony show and actively seek out my news on the net. I
find out what people are saying, and if it interests me I research it.
If nothing else, I miss out on the pop culture crap. For example, I
went weeks wondering why a friend of mine kept saying "Winning!" and
talking about tiger's blood. Tell me you don't envy me that.
As for the OWS movement, I did some research. I was prepared yesterday
to post a bunch of news stories where the goals of the movement were
mentioned, even obliquely. The most coherent goals came out of
Louisville and Lexington Kentucky. They seem to have their act
together. Almost everything else boiled down vaguely to "we hate
corporate greed!". For every news story where I could find some kind of
statement of their purpose (even if it was simply quoted words on a
protest sign), there were two that didn't mention them at all. They are
failing big time to get their message out there.
This morning, I ran across a link to a page that listed a proposed list
of demands on the occupy wall street forum. It's not an official list,
but if this is indicative of where the movement is heading, then they
might as well pack up and go home. Here is the link:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/
For example, whoever wrote this wants to unionize all workers, institute
a minimum wage of $18/hr and a maximum of $90/hr, institute a moratorium
on all foreclosures and layoffs, lower the retirement age to 55,
increase Social Security benefits, allow workers to elect their
supervisors, and forgive all individual debt. Gods above, entitled to
much are we?
I sure hope this was a joke or was posted by someone trying to make the
movement look bad, because if it's not we as a country are seriously
screwed.
The funny thing is, there are a few things we could agree upon. I'm
against any attempts to game the markets, and I'm against
anti-competitive laws and regulations. I could get behind an attempt to
reinstate Glass-Steagal, for example. But right now I'd have to see
some actual proposals put forth by the OWSers before I even thought
about jumping on their band wagon.
If I had to pick one issue to get everyone behind that I thought would
give us the biggest bang for the buck, I'd suggest promoting instant
runoff voting (or a similar system) to give us the option of more than
two parties come election time.
Paul
On 11/14/2011 01:01 AM, Saundra Lund wrote:
>
> In part, Paul wrote:
>
> "All of this is just my opinion, of course. It's based on what I've
> happened to come across in the media. I don't get TV, nor do I listen
> to much radio (except for NPR when I drive to work). Most of what
> I've seen comes from online media, usually referenced by people
> already involved in an argument on a forum somewhere."
>
> With all due respect, I'd like to suggest that perhaps you expand your
> horizons rather than assuming that the OWS movement is as limited as
> you seem to think it is. As others have pointed out, much of the
> movement is more focused than your limited perception.
>
> Even better, how about involving yourself with the OWS movement,
> sharing your thoughts, and making a difference? Reggie just recently
> posted about local efforts, so why not take part & make your voice
> heard? Any movement is only as good as those actively involved, you know.
>
> Who knows -- perhaps if you & others would have gotten involved in the
> undeniably astroturfed Tea Party movement in the beginning, the whole
> perversion by the Evangelical Christians Lusting for a Theocracy
> takeover wouldn't have destroyed the nuggets of gold. Shoot -- I
> happen to know that's exactly what happened locally & nationally,
> which is really too bad because there was some good stuff in spite of
> the astroturfing before the so-called "Christian culture warriors"
> shouted everyone else down.
>
> Another undeniable point, it seems to me: those who've benefitted
> from obscene transfer of wealth in this country aren't powerless, you
> know -- they have the wealth & power to influence outcomes, yet
> they've just been silent while amassing their morally ill-gotten
> gains. Until recently, at least, when more than a few have rightly
> bashed the GOP for their obscene lunacy in insisting that lower- and
> middle-class individuals & families should continue to be economically
> robbed.
>
> None of that changes the fact that the uberwealthy continued to take
> advantage of the benefits the wealth of those in their class bought
> while screwing the rest of us and Did Nothing to change that obscenity
> until the grossness finally became undeniable.
>
> Do you honestly believe, Paul, that had the uberwealthy not been so
> self-absorbed (at best) in amassing more & more & more that their
> wealth, power, and influence couldn't have changed things before this
> great nation was very nearly destroyed by greed? I suspect that's
> where we disagree in a huge way.
>
> One thing I hope we as a nation have learned is that private charity
> doesn't even come close to addressing the social & economic ills of
> transferring wealth to the very few while screwing over the vast, vast
> majority of US citizens.**
>
> JMHO,
>
> Saundra
>
> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rumelhart
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 13, 2011 7:32 PM
> *To:* Reggie Holmquist
> *Cc:* vision 2020
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] The 1% in Congress
>
>
> I haven't seen a lot of well-reasoned commentary by protesters in
> general. I've seen a few eloquent individuals on Youtube that had
> obviously thought this through, but the majority of what I've seen has
> been an unfocused angst from people who are having a bad time
> financially and are lashing out at those who aren't.
>
> Everyone seems to take my commentary as unblinking opposition when it
> isn't. I could say the sky is blue and people on here would go out of
> their way to show me how wrong I am by showing me pictures of the sky
> on a cloudy day or at night. There are, however, two main reasons I'm
> speaking up here about this:
>
> One: This is a prime opportunity for change to be made. The climate
> is right for it. The power of the people could really do some good
> here. Instead, we get articles like the one Jay posted about a bunch
> of miscreants and their sense of entitlement. Just camping out is not
> enough. Organize! I may even join you! (You being the OWS movement,
> I don't know if you're a member or not).
>
> Two: This focus on class can have some real downsides. A generic
> rant against the wealthy isn't helpful. It's no different on it's
> face than a generic rant about a particular religion or culture that
> has some bad members. There is a lot of potential here for ugliness
> on that scale. How long until someone who looks well off gets their
> ass handed to them by a crowd of protesters? There is real danger
> here. It would go a long way for the movement to acknowledge that and
> to focus on rational arguments and plans to fix them rather than a
> simple venting of frustration.
>
> All of this is just my opinion, of course. It's based on what I've
> happened to come across in the media. I don't get TV, nor do I listen
> to much radio (except for NPR when I drive to work). Most of what
> I've seen comes from online media, usually referenced by people
> already involved in an argument on a forum somewhere. Your mileage
> may vary.
>
> Paul
>
> On 11/13/2011 06:04 PM, Reggie Holmquist wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone hates anyone, except maybe for the greedy bankers
> who ruined our economy by spreading around toxic CDOs. But that
> doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for a higher effective tax rate for
> individuals making millions and millions of dollars. The rich can
> handle it better, it's more fair, and right now America needs the
> public revenues, if for no other reason than to pay down the debt.
> Under FDR the highest tax bracket was 90%. Even under Nixon it was
> 70%, and for much of Reagan's term it was 50%. Right now it is 35%,
> and so many Occupiers think it would be good to push that top marginal
> tax rate back to Reagan levels. There is also a strong argument for
> raising the capital gains tax, which is where most of the 1%'s income
> comes from, anyway. It's more fair, the rich can handle it better,
> and right now America needs the public revenues. There is no reason
> that Warren Buffet should be paying a lower effective tax rate than
> his secretary.
>
> Aside from that, Occupy has been making many of the arguments you seem
> to be asking them to make. They are against corporate tax loopholes,
> they are against corporate personhood, they are against a system which
> allows the financial industry to leverage our own economy against us
> (i.e. reinstate Glass-Steagall). A lot of them also support Campaign
> Finance Reform (because a system that allows the 1% an exponentially
> larger amount of influence in the elections is unjust, un-Democratic,
> and unAmerican), and I have heard quite a few call out for Electoral
> Reform (move from plurality voting to preferential, thereby allowing
> for 3rd parties).
>
> To me, Paul, your amorphous argument against Occupy does not seem
> significant or relevant. Maybe I just don't understand your position?
>
> -Reggie
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
> It's indiscriminate class warfare. Targeting people based solely on
> how much money they have is not any different than targeting someone
> based on any other random criteria. So, instead of targeting randomly
> wealthy people, target those who worked to pass those laws. Target
> the laws themselves.
>
> It's the difference between saying "I hate you because you are rich"
> and "I hate you specifically because you made a deal with a
> congressman to get a special tax benefit that no others have so you
> could unfairly increase your profits on the backs of all tax payers".
> One requires actually thinking about the problem and doing some
> research in an effort to fix it. The other is just lashing out
> because someone is doing well while they are not.
>
> Target the greedy, not the well-to-do. They overlap a lot, but not
> completely.
>
> I'd love for the Occupy Idaho folks to scour the State tax code
> looking for unfair tax benefits and expose them. Much more beneficial
> than just making a statement.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 11/13/2011 02:00 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> You say, 'Condemn the laws that encourage it, such as the ability of
> shareholders to sue if a company is making a decision that affects
> short-term profits in favor of long-term growth or the various tax
> dodges written into the tax code to benefit specific companies over
> their competition (making for a non-free trade market).'
>
> Do you think those laws are somehow disconnected from the institutions
> that pass and sign them? Did they just spring up, somehow disconnected
> from their beneficiaries and sponsors?
>
> Of course there's a direct connection between a ruling class this
> wealthy, and legislation that benefits others in their group, and in
> whose pockets they so comfortably dwell.
>
> How come that's not class warfare? How come it's only class warfare
> when someone says, 'Those guys are screwing us?'
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:09:18 -0800
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
> To: rforce2003 at yahoo.com <mailto:rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The 1% in Congress
>
>
> This kind of thing is a good illustration of what concerns me about
> this whole 1% / 99% metric. Here is a list of people who are in
> Congress who have a lot of money. So what? There is no indication as
> to how these people got their money. No condemnation of certain
> Congressmen because they passed legislation that directly helped their
> bottom line. No effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. How
> many of these people came into their wealth and decided they wanted to
> do something good with it but also understand the idea behind the
> phrase "free milk and a cow"? The only thing we can say is that they
> are doing well.
>
> it looks vaguely like a target list, frankly. What ever happened to
> the good old American Dream(tm)?
>
> What we should be focused on is unmitigated greed. It exists in all
> levels of society, not just in the most wealthy. Condemn the laws
> that encourage it, such as the ability of shareholders to sue if a
> company is making a decision that affects short-term profits in favor
> of long-term growth or the various tax dodges written into the tax
> code to benefit specific companies over their competition (making for
> a non-free trade market). There are plenty other examples of outright
> greed that we could be focusing on. Instead, we are focusing on net
> wealth as some kind of metric of Good vs. Evil. Sure, the wealthy
> could be doing more to help the poor, but so could each one of us.
>
> While we're on the subject of the seven deadly sins, why not take a
> close look at "envy" while we're at it?
>
> Paul
>
> On 11/11/2011 04:34 PM, Ron Force wrote:
>
> *Table 2: All members of Congress with average net worth above $9
> million, from 2009*
>
> *Name*
>
>
>
> *Minimum Wealth*
>
>
>
> *Maximum Wealth*
>
>
>
> *Average*
>
>
>
> *Chamber*
>
> Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
>
>
>
> $156,050,022
>
>
>
> $451,100,000
>
>
>
> $303,575,011
>
>
>
> House
>
> John Kerry (D-Mass.)
>
>
>
> $182,755,534
>
>
>
> $294,869,059
>
>
>
> $238,812,296
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Mark Warner (D-Va.)
>
>
>
> $65,692,210
>
>
>
> $283,077,995
>
>
>
> $174,385,102
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
>
>
>
> $36,694,140
>
>
>
> $285,123,996
>
>
>
> $160,909,068
>
>
>
> House
>
> Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)
>
>
>
> $89,358,027
>
>
>
> $231,245,995
>
>
>
> $160,302,011
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.)
>
>
>
> -$69,434,661
>
>
>
> $366,180,982
>
>
>
> $148,373,160
>
>
>
> House
>
> Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
>
>
>
> $73,685,086
>
>
>
> $201,537,000
>
>
>
> $137,611,043
>
>
>
> House
>
> James E. Risch (R-Idaho)
>
>
>
> $38,936,114
>
>
>
> $179,131,990
>
>
>
> $109,034,052
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
>
>
>
> $61,446,018
>
>
>
> $136,218,002
>
>
>
> $98,832,010
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
>
>
>
> $64,210,256
>
>
>
> $125,529,976
>
>
>
> $94,870,116
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
>
>
>
> $46,055,250
>
>
>
> $108,109,018
>
>
>
> $77,082,134
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
>
>
>
> $49,083,204
>
>
>
> $104,690,018
>
>
>
> $76,886,611
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
>
>
>
> -$7,356,915
>
>
>
> $124,229,990
>
>
>
> $58,436,537
>
>
>
> House
>
> Gary Miller (R-Calif.)
>
>
>
> $19,365,053
>
>
>
> $84,302,000
>
>
>
> $51,833,526
>
>
>
> House
>
> Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
>
>
>
> $9,778,047
>
>
>
> $91,656,998
>
>
>
> $50,717,522
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Diane Lynn Black (R-Tenn.)
>
>
>
> $14,673,049
>
>
>
> $84,145,990
>
>
>
> $49,409,519
>
>
>
> House
>
> Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)
>
>
>
> $19,898,179
>
>
>
> $67,697,000
>
>
>
> $43,797,589
>
>
>
> House
>
> Rick Berg (R-N.D.)
>
>
>
> $19,347,579
>
>
>
> $58,981,451
>
>
>
> $39,164,515
>
>
>
> House
>
> Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
>
>
>
> $14,900,036
>
>
>
> $63,125,000
>
>
>
> $39,012,518
>
>
>
> House
>
> Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)
>
>
>
> $13,303,385
>
>
>
> $63,106,351
>
>
>
> $38,204,868
>
>
>
> House
>
> Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.)
>
>
>
> $6,598,014
>
>
>
> $56,244,997
>
>
>
> $31,421,505
>
>
>
> House
>
> Scott Rigell (R-Va.)
>
>
>
> $11,618,078
>
>
>
> $48,200,000
>
>
>
> $29,909,039
>
>
>
> House
>
> Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)
>
>
>
> $12,556,055
>
>
>
> $44,669,000
>
>
>
> $28,612,527
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> James B. Renacci (R-Ohio)
>
>
>
> $17,571,131
>
>
>
> $39,297,044
>
>
>
> $28,434,087
>
>
>
> House
>
> Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
>
>
>
> $11,522,909
>
>
>
> $44,209,871
>
>
>
> $27,866,390
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.)
>
>
>
> $7,045,017
>
>
>
> $41,899,994
>
>
>
> $24,472,505
>
>
>
> House
>
> Tom Petri (R-Wis.)
>
>
>
> $5,111,026
>
>
>
> $43,765,999
>
>
>
> $24,438,512
>
>
>
> House
>
> John Campbell (R-Calif.)
>
>
>
> $9,227,063
>
>
>
> $37,282,000
>
>
>
> $23,254,531
>
>
>
> House
>
> Steve Pearce (R-N.M.)
>
>
>
> $8,368,014
>
>
>
> $37,945,000
>
>
>
> $23,156,507
>
>
>
> House
>
> Richard L Hanna (R-N.Y.)
>
>
>
> $10,960,117
>
>
>
> $33,276,000
>
>
>
> $22,118,058
>
>
>
> House
>
> Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
>
>
>
> $15,681,206
>
>
>
> $27,543,006
>
>
>
> $21,612,106
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Blake Farenthold (R-Texas)
>
>
>
> $10,359,086
>
>
>
> $31,381,997
>
>
>
> $20,870,541
>
>
>
> House
>
> John Hoeven (R-N.D.)
>
>
>
> -$12,829,960
>
>
>
> $52,851,999
>
>
>
> $20,011,019
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
>
>
>
> $7,102,036
>
>
>
> $32,756,000
>
>
>
> $19,929,018
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Kay R. Hagan (D-N.C.)
>
>
>
> $3,549,596
>
>
>
> $33,149,981
>
>
>
> $18,349,788
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.)
>
>
>
> $14,990,621
>
>
>
> $20,923,567
>
>
>
> $17,957,094
>
>
>
> House
>
> Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
>
>
>
> $1,056,768
>
>
>
> $34,566,596
>
>
>
> $17,811,682
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Michael F Bennet (D-Colo.)
>
>
>
> $6,217,020
>
>
>
> $27,780,000
>
>
>
> $16,998,510
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
>
>
>
> $10,447,125
>
>
>
> $23,082,001
>
>
>
> $16,764,563
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.)
>
>
>
> $9,542,219
>
>
>
> $23,259,000
>
>
>
> $16,400,609
>
>
>
> House
>
> Fred Upton (R-Mich.)
>
>
>
> $7,010,173
>
>
>
> $25,651,000
>
>
>
> $16,330,586
>
>
>
> House
>
> Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.)
>
>
>
> $5,429,018
>
>
>
> $26,697,997
>
>
>
> $16,063,507
>
>
>
> House
>
> John McCain (R-Ariz.)
>
>
>
> $9,769,247
>
>
>
> $22,072,994
>
>
>
> $15,921,120
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
>
>
>
> $7,790,095
>
>
>
> $20,949,999
>
>
>
> $14,370,047
>
>
>
> House
>
> Cynthia Marie Lummis (R-Wyo.)
>
>
>
> $4,939,028
>
>
>
> $23,591,999
>
>
>
> $14,265,513
>
>
>
> House
>
> Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
>
>
>
> $6,393,295
>
>
>
> $20,874,000
>
>
>
> $13,633,647
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
>
>
>
> $6,593,088
>
>
>
> $20,654,033
>
>
>
> $13,623,560
>
>
>
> House
>
> Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)
>
>
>
> $4,561,077
>
>
>
> $20,503,000
>
>
>
> $12,532,038
>
>
>
> House
>
> Tom Price (R-Ga.)
>
>
>
> $7,653,606
>
>
>
> $17,121,588
>
>
>
> $12,387,597
>
>
>
> House
>
> Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
>
>
>
> $8,010,107
>
>
>
> $16,623,001
>
>
>
> $12,316,554
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)
>
>
>
> $4,100,005
>
>
>
> $20,250,000
>
>
>
> $12,175,002
>
>
>
> House
>
> Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
>
>
>
> $6,126,070
>
>
>
> $18,078,998
>
>
>
> $12,102,534
>
>
>
> House
>
> Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
>
>
>
> $6,407,085
>
>
>
> $17,427,999
>
>
>
> $11,917,542
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
>
>
>
> $5,544,075
>
>
>
> $17,468,999
>
>
>
> $11,506,537
>
>
>
> Senate
>
> David Dreier (R-Calif.)
>
>
>
> $5,264,092
>
>
>
> $17,715,000
>
>
>
> $11,489,546
>
>
>
> House
>
> David B. McKinley (R-W.Va.)
>
>
>
> $5,216,060
>
>
>
> $14,316,000
>
>
>
> $9,766,030
>
>
>
> House
>
> John A. Yarmuth (D-Ky.)
>
>
>
> $2,850,009
>
>
>
> $16,349,999
>
>
>
> $9,600,004
>
>
>
> House
>
> John Fleming (R-La.)
>
>
>
> $2,153,834
>
>
>
> $16,797,770
>
>
>
> $9,475,802
>
>
>
> House
>
> Jon Runyan (R-N.J.)
>
>
>
> $5,000,034
>
>
>
> $13,674,999
>
>
>
> $9,337,516
>
>
>
> House
>
> Source: Center for Responsive Politics
> <http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services
> made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the
> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> --
> There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
> what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly
> disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and
> inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
> already happened.
>
> Douglas Adams
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20111115/2132cb08/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list