Yesterday, The New York Times dropped an investigative bombshell that confirmed in detail what most of us already know: The ultra-rich are in control of our electoral process.
Gosh, wouldn't it be great if there was a candidate running who refused to sell out to the rich for campaign contributions?
You know, a candidate funded by the 99% instead of the 1%.
Although this pattern does not fit Bernie Sanders, it's certainly true of conventional beltway candidates.
Thank you, Justin Miller for stating the truth:
"Not surprisingly, these donors are overwhelmingly white, male, old, Republican, and rich—very, very rich."
The kind of obscene wealth these individuals possess buys a LOT of media, think tanks, P.R., and influence. That's why this same ilk finances the "studies" that do their utmost to insist that our nation is post-racist and that gender doesn't matter. So long as the same old kings control the operations of power, media, military, government, and these days, even our food supply... they will argue for the existing system while using their mouthpieces to spread the lie that sexism and racism are irrelevant. And when "The Class item" emerges, they use Frank Luntz logic to turn it into the B.S. that the middle class hates the poor, or that workers just resent people who had the smarts to make tons of money... never mentioning how many super-rich persons were born to phenomenal wealth.
The new gilded age actually started in 2000 with the implementation of Clinton's Commodities Futures Modernization Act and killing of Glass Steagall. At that point enough of FDR's New Deal had been overturned to give the .01% the leverage they needed to complete their modern day Sherman's march to the sea, destroying the 99% as they rapidly advance their agenda.
That's funny, in a grim sort of way. Think the middle class will ever acknowledge how long and hard they worked to restore the Gilded Age? Note: We began rolling out the austerity agenda, slowly and from the bottom up, by the mid-1980s. We also began the massive upward redistribution of wealth by the end of the 1980s -- largely to corporations, always with the claim that this is "vital to job creation." Every step of the way, our middle class have applauded this agenda. Now think about it: America looked at the policies and programs implemented from FDR to Reagan, which took the country to its height of wealth and productivity, and CHOSE to do just the opposite.We reversed the policies, ended the programs, and the inevitable happened. Imagine that.
The middle class got what it demanded -- the New Gilded Age. Now we watch as the rich do to the middle class what the middle class already did to the poor, and there's nothing we can do about it. It isn't the rich who did this to the country.
Interesting point. Did you know that what came to be called AFDC was actually first included in FDR's Social Security Act (New Deal), later separated to focus on education, job skills training, and the needs of babies and children? Bill Clinton got rid of that, and still had time to begin similarly "reforming" Social Security itself, targeting the disabled. All of this has had the support of the middle class. This year alone, Democrats agreed to virtually end food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled. Consider the response (or lack thereof) from liberal media. Step by step, we have been reversing a century of progress.
Surely, you jest. The Gilded Age was as different from today as the Ancien Regime in France was different from the Jacobins who chopped the heads off of the king and the aristocrats.
The Gilded Age was a time of very limited government (no regulations of business) and low taxes (no income tax). Limited government and low taxes are what Republicans want today.
The robber barons amassed hugh fortunes and justified their wealth with: "The public be dmaned." (William Vanderbilt)
There was no safety net during the Gilded Age. Social Security; extending Social Security to spouses and dependents; disability insurance; unemployment insurance; a minimum wage; Medicare; Medicaid; and the ACA were all produced by Democrats in the 20th century (the ACA was produced in the 21st century).
The excesses of the Gilded Age caused Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) to propose steeply graduated income and inheritance taxes to redistribute the wealth (wealth inequality was worse during the Gilded Age than it is today). Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned: "You can either have concentarion of wealth in a few hands or you can have democracy, but you can't have both.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
One thing you can always be counted on DHFabian, is engaging in apologetics for the super wealthy, rewriting the history of OWS, and beating up on what's left of the middle class.