[Vision2020] The 1% in Congress
Saundra Lund
v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
Tue Nov 15 18:01:29 PST 2011
If you want to critique my response to you, then please do so on the basis
of what I wrote, not on what you wish I'd have written & indeed apparently
hoped would provoke response. Nowhere did I say anything about you not
watching "mainstream news," something I myself only rarely watch.
In spite of the fact that I don't rely on "watching mainstream news," I've
managed to inform myself about the OWS movement & have found that it has a
lot more depth than your research has uncovered for you. Go figure.
You wrote:
"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."
What I don't envy you is the lack of an innate curiosity about what's going
on around you. I, too, missed the whole Charlie Sheen thing when it was
current (just like I had no idea who Snooky or whoever was until some morons
attacked our president for knowing who she was), but once I heard about it,
I was curious. Mind you, I don't see anything odd about having missed the
phenomenon; rather, what I find odd is that you had a friend making comments
you wondered about for weeks yet lacked the curiosity to ask the friend
about the comments . . . or to try to learn about them on your own.
Ah, well, individuality is what makes life so interesting, isn't it? You,
Ted, Wayne, and some others here know a lot more about anthropogenic climate
change than I could ever hope to learn, and I know a lot more about, for
instance, the agendas of some groups locally, statewide, and nationally to
back-door in theocracy than you've educated yourself about.
One last comment: I personally don't see anything wrong with a movement
that focuses on how greed - individual & corporate - has brought this great
nation to the brink of destruction, and it annoys the heck out of me when
people like you want to grossly oversimplify the OWS message as "class
warfare" after having completely turned a blind eye to the real class
warfare that got us here. Consciously ignoring that real class warfare
worked out real well for this nation, didn't it? NOT.
Saundra
From: Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 12:23 PM
To: Saundra Lund
Cc: 'Reggie Holmquist'; 'vision 2020'
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The 1% in Congress
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>
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
To: rforce2003 at yahoo.com
CC: 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
=======================================================
--
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/20111115/1410995b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list