Rich and powerful elites are not generally job creators as Republicans assert as part of their propaganda to get government spending cuts and prevent higher taxes on the rich. by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(libertarian)
Thursday, July 21, 2011
We would already have had a much needed American revolution in response to the tyranny of the money-fed two-party plutocracy that is destroying the middle class except for one big problem: so much of the American population is just plain stupid. Too stupid to behave like angry Greeks and rise up in the streets to rebel against the dysfunctional government.
In the never ending fight of Republicans and their cancerous (make that stupid) Tea Party members to gain even more control of the US political system, economy and culture they have fixed on another semantic weapon. The latest attack on intelligence is the constant use of the term job creators in place of words like the rich or wealthy. Not just plain Republicans in Congress are doing this, but especially the large crop of Republican presidential candidates.
This bit of cleverness surely was deemed necessary because much of the nation was beginning to appreciate the class warfare going on. Rising economic inequality, unemployment set in concrete, and merging of the middle class into the poverty stricken lower class were all becoming clearer.
Keep this in mind: As Zuckerman pointed out, the US “experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.” Business sectors have discovered that they can maximize profits with smaller US work forces; they export jobs and their capital investments. And they benefit from all kinds of tax loopholes protected by Republicans so that they pay very little if any US taxes.
A terrific new article by Jeff Reeves makes the case that unemployment will actually rise to over 10 percent, because of anticipated layoffs in the financial, technology, and aerospace and defense sectors. The data are compelling. All this despite high profits.
What were Republicans to do, especially as they used the current crisis surrounding the need to raise the national debt limit to seek huge cuts in federal spending affecting ordinary Americans and prevent higher taxes for the greedy rich and corporate forces?
What better way than to falsely claim and constantly presume that those that should be paying higher taxes are exactly the ones who create jobs and that they would not do so if hit by higher taxes. In truth, this is a bold lie. The richest Americans have been paying the lowest taxes in many decades and corporate profits have been enormous, and this reality has clearly had absolutely no positive impact on the unemployment and underemployment plaguing at least 30 million Americans and their family members.
Go back to the post-World War II era when the richest Americans paid very high taxes and you discover that jobs and fairly distributed wealth were created in abundance.
Neither wealth nor jobs trickle down from the Upper Class. Proper government policies are required to prevent criminally large fractions of the nation’s wealth going to the most greedy and selfish elites. Those NOT rich that support Republicans are very stupid; they have been brainwashed by the steady stream of Republican lies and propaganda that are used to serve the rich and corporate interests sustaining Republicans with much money. The return on their investment has proven more than adequate to justify their endless input of money to Republicans.
We probably will soon see President Obama cave in and giver Republicans much of what they want. There will be major cuts in federal programs that will place millions of Americans in even more precarious economic uncertainty and pain. And there will probably be far too little increases in taxes on the rich and corporations. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security may all be cut in ways that harm many people.
Lies are constantly being fed to the public. Will you be smart enough to see them for what they are? The more you face this ugly, disturbing reality, the more embarrassed you will be about the US political system and, hopefully, the more inclined you will be to stop voting for any Republicans or Democrats and participating in our delusional democracy.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Joel S. Hirschhorn is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 22, 2011 01:18:02 PM
I'm having a hard time believing that a libertarian wrote this. Even a dyed-in-the-wool Party Libertarian.
It's completely vacuous and, therefore, offensively insulting to anyone with an IQ greater than a slab of Spam.
Go back to the post-World War II era when the richest Americans paid very high taxes and you discover that jobs and fairly distributed wealth were created in abundance.
There was no more of an equitable distribution of wages in the 50s than there is today, or than there was during Twain's Gilded Age. The rich got rich, the poor did not; those with ideas and gumption made the transition - as they always have.
It was the ability to translate ideas and gumption into class-jumping that was the primary difference between then and now. It certainly wasn't the tax rates that made the difference. It was the lack of governmental bossy-britching.
Neither wealth nor jobs trickle down from the Upper Class
Depends entirely on the style of government in place - but then I suspect you already know that.
In any of the major forms of totalitarian government - socialism, dictatorship [military or ideological, either one], monarchism, hyper-bureaucracism, etc - you're absolutely correct. It doesn't. Because the "upper class" IS the ruling class for the most part, and their wealth and privileged status has less to do with their economic prowess and more to do with their connectedness. They don't need to share.
The more the economy is controlled by government, the less the "upper class" has to share. The less the economy is controlled by the government, the more the upper class has to share. If it doesn't, it won't maintain its position.
Proper government policies are required to prevent criminally large fractions of the nation’s wealth going to the most greedy and selfish elites
"Criminal"? Cite the law that makes profit a crime.
Greed is good. The major criticism of the concept made by unreconstructed marxists and other pseudo-academic pinheads is that others are better at it than they are. They are still acting out of unvarnished self-interest and greed in their political affectations, but simply using the mechanism of The State to accomplish their ends for them, as they are too incompetent to do it themselves.
There will be major cuts in federal programs that will place millions of Americans in even more precarious economic uncertainty and pain. And there will probably be far too little increases in taxes on the rich and corporations. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security may all be cut in ways that harm many people.
And this is one of the reasons I'm having a difficult time assuming this piece of tripe was written by anyone other than a socialist. Libertarianism would posit that it is not our State's business to provide health coverage or old-age pensions to anyone. Sure, cite the mission statement from the Constitution that asserts "public welfare", but then find within the specific authorities the mechanism for connecting the dot of "old-age pension" to the dot of "public welfare". Without it, there is no authority.
...unless you're a liberal or, worse, a "progressive", who doesn't think the Constitution means what it says, but is subject to constant reinterpretation according to the whims of the day.
Lies are constantly being fed to the public. Will you be smart enough to see them for what they are?
Yes, lies are indeed constantly being fed to the public. But luckily, I've rejoined yours.
Now stop being ... what was the word...? ah, yes: stupid. Stop being stupid.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: July 22, 2011 03:38:23 PM
Dear rwilymz: As you have shown in other comments on this site, you sir are a complete, ill formed, unintelligent and highly stupid person. You are giving this site a very bad reputation. Why don't you post your real full name and educational and professional background and credentials so the world can better evaluate you. That you apparently do not know what is total factual truth revealed in countless documents about the post-World War II era and the incredible wealth sharing during remarkable economic growth is proof positive of your total and complete idiocy. Find something better to do with your life. Do you write full length articles that can communicate your self-delusional regard for your knowledge and intelligence? I will never waste any more time dealing with your insipid comments.
"In any of the major forms of totalitarian government - socialism, dictatorship [military or ideological, either one], monarchism, hyper-bureaucracism, etc - you're absolutely correct. It doesn't. Because the "upper class" IS the ruling class for the most part, and their wealth and privileged status has less to do with their economic prowess and more to do with their connectedness. They don't need to share."
This quote was taken from the long comment above. Do you have any clue how correct you are? Have you examined the structure of our current economic strata?
money monopoly {federal reserve etc.}, land monopolies protected by the state, copyright/patent monopolies protected by the state and infrastructure and bailouts built by taxation of the productive sector. yes, as you mentioned, the upper class is the ruling class and ALWAYS is. Have you heard of "ruling" classes that were poor?
Posted By: Bentree
Date: July 23, 2011 09:16:30 AM
Joel,
It is hard to argue with your call too revolution and the dysfunctionality of our government and I may not agree with you about the Tea Party, but it is quite apparent that you are convinced that money held in private hands neither creates jobs nor trickles down. So as a member of the stupid masses please explain to me and the huddled masses, who are simply going about their lives in quite desperation, just who does the creating and the trickling. In other words reveal thy self. I have been self employed all my life, I've had to create my own paycheck my whole life, how about you? Trickle down “IS” how capitalism works, Socialist don't and won't get this because they have an intellectual blockage much like a sewer line, and like a sewer line there will come a time when a backup invariably occurs and guess what happens? That's right, the crap they have been purveying blows up in everyones face. The evitability of socialism.
Please spare me the long boring coloquio with the intent to impress us and justify your progressive intellectual dysfunction with your self rightous suffrage of the common man.
The real shame here is that someone liked that piece of , I'm sorry, gotta go, I'm only allowed so much computer time down here at the shelter. Toodle and have a great day.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: July 23, 2011 11:42:50 AM
What we need is ethical capitalism, by that I mean capitalism that does not aim to control the political system and public policy so that the rich benefit preferentially and unfairly. In other words, capitalism that does not corrupt the political system.
I once was an entrepreneur and capitalist that started and operated a small business for which I hired a number of people, so I really do know first hand what job creation is all about. I urge clear minded people to think about the many classes of wealthy Americans and whether they actually create jobs; for example, the many Wall Street fat cats who make tens or hundreds of millions yearly, or even billions, and whether they actually create thousands of jobs because of their various money-gaming activities. Think also of highly paid sports and entertainment celebrities and whether they are true job creators. Think also of the incredibly paid corporate executives who have been exporting our manufacturing and good jobs. People should be outraged that Apple is sitting on $76 billion accumulated in large measure because their products are manufactured in low wage countries. Think too about the many people benefiting from all kinds of tax loopholes so that the very rich are paying less income tax than ordinary Americans. Capitalism in the US has gone nuts because it no longer works to support both workers and consumers, but only the rich. And the rich and powerful elites control the political system which by now should be completely obvious to everyone. When I was a business owner I also worked in various third world countries where I always observed that despite widespread poverty there always was a rich and powerful upper class skimming national wealth and controlling the government, exactly what we have become.
Posted By: Roy Ellis
Date: July 25, 2011 12:33:58 PM
Hey Joel, your old 3rd party advocate here (but not just any party – a party established in some rules). I just finished blogging about the furthering of globalisation in that Ikea is paying their US workers $8/hr while their European counterparts are making twice that. Can you imagine how close $8/hr is to the minimum wage, something we used to laugh at a few years back. Now some 45M US un-underemployed would love to have a job at or near minimum wage.
Also blogged about the C of C’s recent quest for the gov’t to clarify the Foreign Corruption Practices Act of 1977, prior to globalisation. Seems US companies are having a hard time determining who they can bribe.
Some recent fines resulting from enforcement of the FCPA: Tysons Foods $5.2M, IBM $10M, Johnson & Johnson $70M, Siemens $800M. The News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch is the latest company facing bribery allegations. In fact, Rupert gave the C of C a million dollars to lobby for amending the FCPA. Understandable.
Ikea received some $12M in incentives, yore money, to open the plant in Danville, Va. And, I’m sure their execs have reaped their share of the 400 plus percent rise in exec pay since the 70’s. And, we know that corporations are setting on ‘tons’ of cash but won’t invest until some more ‘incentives’ are tossed into the mix.
Cutting to the chase, we are now ruled by Corpocracy and the only way to put the genie back in the bottle from this point is through a new 3rd party with a different political attitude. Through a 3rd party we can abolish corporate personhood and implement campaign finance reform, removing much of the money influence from government. That is the primary agenda for the Republic Sentry Party.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 27, 2011 01:35:34 PM
As you have shown in other comments on this site, you sir are a complete, ill formed, unintelligent and highly stupid person.
Waaaaaah, Joel.
What I am ill-informed of is the particular brand of delusional conspiracy theories that perturb your mind. I've got a Mensa membership that belies your pat dismissal of my intelligence, and knowing better than a conspiracist is hardly stupid.
You are giving this site a very bad reputation
There IS NO reputation for this site. It's the same bunch of essay writers writing for each other. With almost zero exception there are no outside interests showing enough interest in this place to care to respond.
Among those few exceptions: me.
Why don't you post your real full name and educational and professional background and credentials so the world can better evaluate you.
Once again, folks, my name is hardly a secret. I used to be here a few years ago - as the name you are desperately interested in - but was run off and deleted by, among others, you. How dare anyone challenge your preposterous navel-gazing?!?
I am a military data analyst, college edumacated, grad-school edumacated, smarter than you and - most pertinent to this discussion - rational. That's all you need to be concerned with.
I will never waste any more time dealing with your insipid comments.
You didn't waste any time now. You simply called me names and demanded to have irrelevant information upon which to poison the well further.
Dig it: Where you are factually correct, your facts are irrelevant; but you are commonly NOT factually correct.
You are pushing an agenda that is based upon wishful thinking and gimcrackery, and when I pointed out some of the specific areas in which this was occuring you immediately started pouting.
Don't blame me for ruining any reputation; if your notions had any validity and veracity at all, you'd have no trouble defending them in full. You'd probably also have no trouble asserting them in the first place without labeling 'stupid' everyone who does not accept your screed without quibble.
Posted By: rwilymz
Date: July 27, 2011 01:53:50 PM
Do you have any clue how correct you are?
Yes, of course I do.
Have you heard of "ruling" classes that were poor?
There are notable examples in history where poor people have overthrown the rich, yes. But in short order, those poor people became rich through one of several mechanisms:
1] they steal others' wealth by outright pilfery or by the legitimized pilfery of taxation, or
2] they outlaw wealth - except when it's theirs.
Some folks don't see a measurable distinction between these. See the Russian Revolution.
There are still other examples where the poor have risen up against their rich leaders, overthrown them, set about to squabbling like the ill-informed rabble that the poor usually are, and were prime pickings for the first guy with power and connections [i.e., wealth] to come along behind and show the poor to be what they are best at: being a ripe suck. See French Revolution.
And then there are more examples yet where those rowdy bands of impoverished masses yearning to breathe free were led and manipulated by a cloistered knot of wealthy, intellectual know-it-alls who, among their talents, understand how to manipulate the masses of ripe sucks to their benefit. See the American Revolution, among others - including the populist outrage that is now besetting one-fourth to one-third of the Middle Eastern nations. The ultimate outcome of these will be determined by the ethics of those intellectuals doing the mass manipulation. But suffice it to say, "the rights of man" is not very high on most indignant intellectuals; most are more/less megalomaniacal.
But yes: the political leaders are always rich; but the thing that capitalism assures us that no other economic system in the world is capable of assuring us is that not all the rich will be political leaders. You can be rich independent of political power ONLY in capitalism.
