They Sure Knew How To Say It Back Then, Didn't They ???

[WillyT]

Looks like we're here again, eh???



Sorry about the size, but it's the only way to read the words.

:shrug:

[Brickbat]

1. This one is my favorite. Edited to make it a little bigger.

[WillyT]

3. Also Excellent !!! - Thank You !!!

:kick:

:hi:

[EFerrari]

14. That's great. nt

[sui generis]

2. Huge missing pieces.

The Robber Barrons are not wealthy men so much as bad public policy, i.e.; trade imbalance, outsourced manufacturing, low wages, perma-war, and an utterly insane military budget appropriation.

Let's just start by fixing or erasing those BEFORE we break out the guillotines and behead the evil rich and figure out we just have a bunch of dead evil rich, and all the same problems.

[WillyT]

4. WOW !!! - A Defender Of The Robber Barons

I've seen it all now!

:wtf:

BTW - I'm not ready to cut their heads off... yet.

We should begin by going back to previous tax rates on the rich. After that... we'll see.

:evilgrin:

[cbdo2007]

5. No...just someone who understands the actual problems with our economic

policy and doesn't simplify it to high taxes vs low taxes.

[WillyT]

7. Oh... An Expert... We're Saved !!!

We are all so impressed with what you've done so far.

What's coming next???

:shrug:

[sui generis]

11. your conversational style could be brought up

to first grade level if you try really hard.

How bout some conversation instead of derision.

[Greyhound]

13. The U.S. tax code is at the egg that the robber chickens laid to circumvent the common good

that was imposed on them under the first Roosevelt administration.

The fixes are well known, but the implementation or even the discussion of them will not be allowed.

[sui generis]

20. good one

robber chickens!

Yes it is one of the many eggs our legislature has hatched, but appropriation and spending are the T. Rex of our chicken coop. Robber chickens aren't the biggest bird in this yard.

[myrna minx]

26. 'Robber chickens' actually made me laugh out loud.

:D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Since low taxes have worked so well for us for the past thirty years?

Do you like deregulation of the financial system and NAFTA too?

[sui generis]

23. Jeepers - can't we have a little from each column?

minus your hyperbolic extension to the financial system and NAFTA.

There is a middle path -

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. I repeat, Low taxes, especially while fighting two expensive wars, are a good idea?

n/t

[Ignis]

38. Oh, I'm sure the money will come from somewhere.

And by somewhere, I mean SS, healthcare, education, welfare, etc.
Nothing important like "defense" spending, of course!

[ieoeja]

32. Regarding NAFTA: did you notice the "tariff" reference in the OP cartoon?

Tariffs were used to *benefit* the robber barons by protecting them from overseas competitors. Tariffs have probably also been the #1 cause of wars.


Our "national security" policy is the real problem. We have decided that what is good for 0.00000001% of American businesses, is good for America. So we do everything in our power to undermine the workers of Latin America yielding the following results:

1. maximizing profits for that tiny percentage of US business;

2. making it possible for that tiny percentage of US business to undercut the much larger percentage of US business; so most American businesses are hurt by our foreign policy

3. keeping wages lower overseas means taking jobs away from US; so most Americans are hurt by our foreign policy

4. keeping wages lower overseas means fewer consumers overseas to buy American products; again most Americans and most American businesses are hurt by our foreign policy


Tariffs would help with #2 and #3, but worsen problem #4. Any gains for #2 and #3 would be offset by the losses when the rest of the world responds to our protectionist practices. The threat for warfare increases dramatically as every country tries setting itself up as an island forcing countries to fight each other for resources. Not to mention the growth of xenophobia created by this nationalistic us-vs-them mentality you are championing.

In fact, tariffs are just about the least liberal/progressive thing imaginable. Tariffs were, and will always be, used by the rich and powerful to protect their wealth and power. They will never, can never, be used to protect the poor: domestically or globally.

[pampango]

54. "tariffs are just about the least liberal/progressive thing imaginable." - great post!

It seems that our frustration with regressive taxation, terrible health care, lack of market regulation and a shredded social safety net makes some look to tariffs as the answer to our economic problems.

Tariffs are politically easier to achieve than progressive taxation, effective national health care, etc.. Rather than battling entrenched domestic interests like with taxation and health care, tariffs ostensibly target foreigners who naturally are going to have less political clout than insurance companies and rich Americans.

The truth is that tariffs will just make our rich (our modern day "robber barons") even richer, unless we do make our society more progressive with new policies to deal with the problems above. If we do deal with the above problems, tariffs will not be necessary as Europe (with its 30-country free trade zone) proves.

[sui generis]

10. WOW!!! A complete mischaracterization

I see that a lot. Cathartic crap.

I'm saying the low hanging fruit is also the biggest fruit and it ain't the eeeeevil rich, or at least they aren't first on MY priority for making a difference.

[WillyT]

17. And I'm Confident That The Rich Appreciate Your Stout Defense Of Them

That goes double for their newest purchase as well...The Democratic Party.

:shrug:

[sui generis]

22. As I am confident the Noble Poor require your vast and keen economic insight.

Cause you know what's best for everyone.

Yawn.

[WillyT]

30. I Know That The Poor Are Keenly Aware That They Are Gettng Screwed, As Is The Middle-Class...

And to reduce the historical era characterized by the Robber-Barons as merely "bad public policy" (which one could do with anything from Feudalism to the Holocaust) doesn't quite cut it.

People are fighting for their economic lives, and therefore their very survival.

And they really aren't all that interested in wonkish policy debates that take too much time, result in the most watered-down of compromises, and eventually yield something that is too little too late.

They are going broke, the are angry, they want something done now, and they vote.

Houston...we have a problem.

:shrug:

[sui generis]

35. so . . . isn't it the people with the power to vote

who AREN'T voting that are actually evil by default? The world is full of monsters when you're holding a pitchfork.

[WillyT]

39. No...

The Democratic Party is supposed to be, by historical standards, the one looking out for the working-class/poor/unemployed/etc.

The Republican Party apparently hates government.

The people getting screwed ain't seeing much from the former, and are starting to agree with the latter.

And right now I give odds at 50/50 that Dems have both houses of Congress this time next year.

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

46. And if the choices we have are all sold out to the same interests, then what? nt

[sui generis]

49. we're doing the selling. Us, you and me.

We need to stop thinking in passive voice.

It's our beloved Obama who's at the helm this time - and we voted for him and by extension, his fiscal policy. Not banging on Obama directly here, but we also need to have some standards in the next round, and not give in when some asswipe browbeats us into voting for the least worst alternative without questioning anything.

We'd like political solutions to turn on a dime, but the fact is the only real pitchfork/torch we have is our vote, and our voice, and we need to use that more effectively with our representatives in government. Politics is a contact sport - and if we aren't contacting people and engaging them in realistic grass roots efforts, then we're selling our choices by not participating. We ARE accountable, not the "other guy".

And even in spite of participating, America has largely voted to take away my right to name my own family. I don't give a shit. If the law makes my personal life meaningless, then I have no use for it. This governed is not consenting. I'm still married, I still have a family, and I still refer to my family as my family, and I really don't give a crap what any piece of paper symbolizes. I DO know that I'll cheat when I need to take care of my family, since there is no point in playing fair, given the current state of law.

So know your own mind and know how far you're willing to go in the name of what you think is "right". Understand the topics, and then get on a soap box, meet with your reps IN PERSON if possible, write letters ON PAPER, and go to those marches, rallies and other events that define what's important to you. It's not going to happen overnight - not even if we rounded up every person who makes more than 100K and turned them into fertilizer before the evening news today. If wealthy people are using money to secure their money, then we need to use our legs and voices to secure what's important to us. Those are the respective weapons at this fight.

Edited to add . . . I'd be fertilizer and so would a lot of other people on "our" side. Let's avoid the fertilizer scenario.

[WillyT]

51. On THAT... We Definitely Agree !!!

:toast:

Still wanna Mulch The Rich though. I'll try and get over it.

:evilgrin:

[laughingliberal]

53. I do believe I have been one of the people railing against this voting for the lesser of the evils

I have no problem with those who make over $100,000 a year. I have a problem with all the laws benefiting the corporate interests (and I don't mean everyone who has LLC after their name). I am, absolutely, in favor of the repeal of the Bush tax cuts and I am in favor of repealing any laws that are letting corporate America mooch off our infrastructure, our work force, and out citizens without giving a damned thing back. It is time to bring these welfare whores down. And you have no idea what kind of activism I have been engaged in. I have been involved at the local and state levels since I was a teenager and that was a damned long time ago.

[newtothegame]

19. Why exactly do we even need to go back to previous tax rates on the rich?

Couldn't be just use our current tax dollars better? Then no one would need to be paying exorbitantly higher rates than anyone else just because they were successful?

This isn't defending robber barons, this is common sense.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Only if we cut where the REAL fat is--in the "defense" establishment

Get the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq
Close the foreign military bases
Fire the civilian contractors
End work on the fantasy weaponry
Put everyone to work meeting domestic needs, of which we have a huge backlog, for a lot less than the wars cost.

But when right-wingers talk about cutting spending, they're usually talking about things like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (funded by four days of the Iraq War) or the myth that there are armies of people who live luxuriously on "welfare."

[sui generis]

27. agreed

well said

I would also add that there is a related myth about everyone who makes more than I do is sitting around trying to figure out how to keep me down economically, regardless of whether I make 10K, 100K or a million bucks a year. There's always somebody else who has a greater advantage, and they must therefore be evil. If we get rid of them, there will be no more evil.

The FACT is republicanism appeals to people who believe they might become "rich" and able to take advantage of those loopholes. My life experience is that people will defend their advantage, to the death, and my fellow democrats, generally speaking, aren't prepared for realistically dealing with dirty fighters. Keep in mind the other side believes trying to remove their advantage is 'fighting dirty' and both sides are both passionate and unrealistic about defending their turf.

[newtothegame]

31. +1000. That was a VERY intelligent post. n/t

[Romulox]

33. Because the majority of our Federal resources are marshalled in service of the Rich to begin with.

:hi:

[WillyT]

34. How Do Yo Know They're Successful ??? - Just Because They Are Rich ???

There are plenty of rich people who haven't done a thing to earn that money.

That's why there is an Estate Tax - Winston Churchill argued that estate taxes are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”.

And a Progressive Tax - "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith

I'm not talking about going back to 94% on the top earners, but I'd go to 50% from now until we are out of this crisis, and then go back to 40% when we've installed the necessary oversights to make sure this never happens again.

:shrug:

[treestar]

56. That was unfair

You're using right wing tactics.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. All those problems exist ONLY because of the influence of those evil few.

As long as they are making the laws, there can be no reform. And they are NOT going to relinquish their power without some assistance from below.

The system exists only for their benefit, and they have made it unfixable.

When 44% of the nations wealth in controlled by 1% of the population, and when 62% is controlled by 5% of the population it definitely IS the wealthy men, the robber barons, who are the problem.

[sui generis]

12. The evil rich control the military?

War and military spending on supporting infrastructure does the trick. Those robber "barrons" are the common shareholders of those corporations, including most 401K holders.

It's not about finding a villain. It's about finding policy weakness and addressing it. Sharks eat meat. If we leave meat out there, there will be sharks. Killing the sharks who are eating your chum does not address the problem.

[Fumesucker]

8. Guillotines are *so* eighteenth century..

We have wood chippers today.. :evilgrin:

[WillyT]

9. LOL !!! - "Mulch The Rich ???"

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[FiveGoodMen]

16. Do you suppose they'd make good fertilizer?

[Jamastiene]

41. Of course, they would.

They are full of shit. Naturally, they would make excellent fertilizer.

[Ignis]

36. ...

:spray: :thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

47. +1

:rofl: :rofl:

[Ignis]

37. "Robber Barrons are not wealthy men"

Then they're not very good at what they do, are they?

There's no "Good Effort" trophy in laissez-faire capitalism.

[Bucky]

60. The poster didn't word it elegantly, but what he meant is obvious, if you're not being petty

Not that I buy his arguments, but you can at least show respect for the ideas you disagree with.

He clearly meant the problem isn't that someone was getting wealthy but that other people's opportunities for success were being cut off in the process. For what it's worth, the Robber Barons in practice were anything but laissez-faire.

Sui Generis's specifics are a little wanting (the Robber Barons didn't do "outsourcing" and no serious person is saying behead the rich), but his viewpoint deserves arguments, not snark.

[blindpig]

43. You list the effects of capitalism,

get rid of that and the rich go with it.

History shows that fixing don't work, erasure is the the only option.

[laughingliberal]

45. Killjoy. (kidding)

[anonymous171]

15. Death to the Economic Royalists! nt

[pampango]

18. In those days the robber barons favored tariffs (and war and monopoly, but they still favor those).

The rich back then wanted tariffs to protect their profits from foreign competition. That continued pretty much through the Smoot/Hawley/Hoover (all repubs, of course) with the rich favoring tariffs. FDR (and then Truman) got around the S/H/H tariffs by working out deals with other countries during the Depression, then established GATT to make sure that tariffs didn't make a big comeback after WWII.

[liberal_at_heart]

28. Very powerful!

[amborin]

29. K$R when in 2010 do the Bush tax cuts to the rich end?

[KoKo]

40. Good Stuff, Willy T.....! K&R

[omega minimo]

42. They knew how to say it. How come nobody listens?

[WillyT]

44. THEY Listened Then...

Labor Movement, Trust Busting, New Deal, etc...

WE ain't listening...yet. Because most people are still trying to figure out what the hell just happened.

The power of THAT narrative, when fully formed and widely held, will be something to watch!

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

50. Too little, too late

That knowledge and imagery and history of the Robber Barons, deregulated Capitalism, monopolies were all available to those who grew up after the corrections had been made --- and lived to witness them being undone, one by one.

So no, I ain't buying "........because most people are still trying to figure out what the hell just happened."


Why does history repeat itself?

[WillyT]

52. I Think You Just Answered Your Own Question

Those who fail to learn...

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

57. Those who fail to take responsibility

watch for decades as Reaganism destroys the nation and when things get catastrophic enough to get their attention, decide to start to maybe do something.

[salguine]

48. I'm fond of this one, and liking it more each day:

[snake in the grass]

55. Our species...

...just cannot seem to get out of this cycle of repetition.

[rateyes]

58. It ought to be 94% again.

You'd see charitable giving and employment skyrocket.

[WillyT]

59. They're Definitely Asking For It...

If ya know what I mean.

:mad:

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

61. In 1903 a Congressman from Ohio, J.C. Cooper, wrote a book.

It is "THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL; or, REVOLUTION IN 1907"

A very interesting read about Congressman Cooper, his fight against the "Trusts" and his election to Congress, then his documentation of voter fraud back then. I think it should become a history book, and I have some of it scanned and on a disk.