If all the wealth in America was fairly distributed, would it still be a rich country?
Cannot anyone with any sense of decency not say now "Barack Obama is a indubitably a complete douche bag, a tool of the corporate world"?
It's too bad, no it's pathetic that unions in the US have so few members left and hence so little significance. That can in part be attributed to a lack of cohesion between labor organizations in this country that's been eroding for a very long time. Like the attitude of most of the population of the US, the general social conviction of union groups has been "every man for himself".
Due to progressive taxation and corporate regulation during the 1950s and 60s wealth was more equitably distributed than it was prior or since, The US was by any metric considered "a rich country".
Although the 1% during that era were able to buy all the houses, cars, boats, plane, recreation they wanted, they could not afford to buy many politicians or monopolize media.
Pulling off TPP and TTIP will make Obama more than the "toast of Richistan".
The Obama family will get their lifetime pass on the corporate speaking fee gravy train, enjoying the same 8 figure annual income that the Clintons have enjoyed since 2001 ($17 million in 2013 alone). Add in the corporate contributions to the Obama family foundation and they will be awash in real money.
Not rich in the form of wealth and opulence, but it would probably be "comfortable" with people living decent lives, with meaningful jobs at decent wages. We could have health care, education, decent food, a nice home. Poverty and hunger could be eliminated or at least minimized.
* Unfortunately, for the 0.001%, the cost would be too high. It would cost the 0.001% some or most of their obscene profits, they might lose control of the government if they didn't have the millions and billions to bribe and control it.
* I'm sure they would call in their markers around the world and in the US, and the cops, the National Guard, and many mercenaries would be called in to teach us a lesson.
* Hopefully, We the People would become the teachers and the 0.001% would be the ones to learn the lesson.
I once again e-mailed and called my alleged Representative, Rick Larsen.
* The phone call was interesting. The nice young lady who took the call interrupted me several times to tell me that two out of four jobs in Washington State are due to trade and that he was only interested in providing those jobs. She said yes he is in favor of the trade bills, and of Fast Track. She said the bills would be available to be read for ninety days. Then she corrected herself slightly by saying "the parts of the bills that have been released to the public."
* Larsen was bought and paid for long ago, by Boeing and various other high powered corporations that own Big Pharm, Big Ag, Big Chem, and have large shares of the very profitable Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex. (MICC).
* I read her the Congressional Oath of Office and she cut me off in the middle of it every time, saying that Rick was an ardent supporter of the Constitution and was dedicated to the trade bills to provide jobs for the people of Washington State.
* I finally gave up. No different from the many other times I tried to give him my "Citizen's" input. I don't have a big Dunn and Bradstreet rating.
An excellent question. This competitive sickness reminds me of Sitting Bull pointing out that he US has a distribution problem.
"My" US Congressman who does NOT represent me recently sent me a two page letter proclaiming the wonders of this trade deal. Rather than responding to him once again I just sent another letter to the editors of two main local papers with links etc. on these deals. People do read them.
Ed Schultz just had a very good segment on his show today laying out the reasons for defeating TPP. It should be mandatory viewing for the American public.
Awesome reply fake_french, so true how these dishonest brokers are selling our nation to the global monopoly corporations , from Reagan to Clinton, Bush and now Obama, unbelievable whores.
Obama is working for retirement speech engagements. He will get many speaking gigs if he gets TPP through.
The problem is that there is no pleasure in having a house, car, boat, plane when other people have them, too.
I got the same bullshit from Patty Murray's office and I know that Maria Cantwell and my "representative", Derek Kilmer, will also support Fast Track and the TPP. Considering the enormous damage to country-wide jobs, our health, the environment and our very sovereignty as a nation, I consider this sellout by Obummer and his tools in the Congress to be an outrageous betrayal. I have already informed the offices of all three of the above politicians that I will never vote for them again and I will work for any politician of integrity who will represent me and the huge number of Americans who believe in the liberal policies which are regularly ignored by this bunch of shills in Washington, DeCeit. I am beyond disgusted.
Maybe there isn't a difference in either. They both achieve their goals in different ways. the replubicans through fear and hate. The democratic party sells a dream they never keep. Either way we all are pretty much screwed. Bernie is our only hope. But I'm afraid the powers that be won't allow him to be president. So we're screwed, at lease until we get tired of it. And then we do the screwing
Maybe yes maybe no, but for damn sure he will speak for the American people and not the corporate power structure that the last five administrations sucked up on.
Too bad you have to have disposable income to get his message.
I work out of state but my district has Herrera Beutler, I can't imagine a call to her being an improvement over Larsen. Although as she's a republican, she might vote right? on this one. I sent an e-mail, instead.
Strategically speaking, is defeating fast track going to help our objective of defeating the TPP and other instruments of the global neoliberal regime?
If fast track is defeated, all it will mean is that the US Congress can make minor tweaks on an agreement that is awful from start to finish - making its passage much easier than fast track and its "take it or leave it" conditions.
I suspect that making income distribution somewhat less skewed would increase total GDP enough to give the rich slightly more in absolute terms than they have now, but they would hate it because the are bad jealous of those less fortunate than themselves.