Skip to main content

Every now and then I have a little epiphany, usually from reading something, that makes me realize that the way I, and almost everyone else, is thinking about something isn't right. Sometimes politicians and the media have changed the discussion (to deficits rather than job creation, for example) to further their own goals. Sometimes the discussion has just drifted and the focus has changed to something insignificant.

The Rude Pundit blog is, well, rude, and it's often funny, and it pulls no punches, and sometimes it's very insightful. It's difficult to link to the particular post that snapped me out of my "stinkin' thinkin'" so I'll except some key lines below.

(If you want to try to find the entire post go to for 9/5/12 and look for "DNC Day 1: Now That's the America We Know:" He doesn't post a lot so it should be easy.)

From The Rude Pundit:
The RNC's narrative was based on a fantasy, that the country is made up of entrepreneurs and entrepreneur-wannabes, a bunch of gun-toting freedom loving men whose wives proudly give birth to whatever children are ejaculated into their wild, untamed vaginas, a white rural fantasia where all anyone needs is to be left alone in order to fulfill one's destiny, the chimera of rugged individualism never so seemingly at odds with the true day-to-day lives of Americans.

The truth is something so very different and so very messy compared with the neat, white fictions the RNC laid out. The truth is that most people don't want to start businesses. They want jobs or better lives and if they get it through the government, then at least it's a fuckin' paycheck. The truth is that most people won't ever need a gun, even if they pretend they do. The truth is that this is a messy country, and stories move forward, into a hard-fought and unsure future, even if the GOP is stuck in a flashback to a nation that not only never existed, but could only exist in the most extreme dictatorial state. The RNC portrayed the citizens of the country as being in a locked battle with an evil government, as if the Obama administration was the Assad regime in Syria and they were just meagerly armed rebels, the better to appeal to the knuckle-dragging Tea Party, who were barely mentioned but whose neanderthal gruntings echoed constantly in the speeches. The Democrats, last night, at least, called "Bullshit" on their war.


Michelle Obama rebuked the notion that the greatest good is making money, that financial comfort and material accumulation is the only measure of success. There is more, she said, there is family and love and community, and, goddamn, isn't that worth more than another ten million? When Republicans tried to say such things, they came across as winking jokes.

End of Rude Pundit blog quotes.

Whether you make $10,000 a year or ten billion dollars a year almost everyone wants to make more money. But ever since the Reagan/Ayn Rand 1980s and the Me Generation, all the talk from politicians, the pundits, and the media has been about money. (The Religious Right has tried to bring social topics into the picture, and that's been allowed if it was beneficial to Republican elites, and a few the Democrats have brought a few social issues to the fore, and that's been allowed if it was beneficial to the Republican elites, but that's about it.)

In good times and bad the news is all about money. But not everyone, as the Rude Pundit points out, is about money. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur. In fact, the majority of Americans don't.

As much as the media loves to run with the subject of the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous (a 1980s TV show) and the 90,000 square foot house in Florida, Americans know that that's not for them. They would like more money, sure, but they're not going to lose their lives to get it. They care about family, community, a decent reliable job and friends and relationships, security, affordable health care and living a normal life. Watching the extravagances of the sociopathic greedy is interesting, maybe even fun, but virtually no one wants to be Mitt Romney.

The discussion has drifted – and I don't think it's accidental – to a point where the only factor in judging a person is how much money they have. That's an anti-human, Republican way of looking at life. And it pervades all our media, all our entertainment, all our conversations. Everything, it seems, is filtered through the mesh of money.

The objectives are to create envy and admiration of the 1%, to make them appear superior to the vast majority of citizens who have chosen a different path, and to change the national focus to the only thing that makes a Republican tick: money.

But Americans aren't Republicans. They're not worried if they've got enough heavy armament and ammo. Americans may be angry about government, but they're angry that the government isn't doing more, not that it's doing too much. Americans simply want a nice, stable economy; they're not interested in further unleashing Wall Street, hedge funds, and too-big-to-fail banks.

Sure, I've long believed that the Republican philosophy is out of touch with America (as is the media), and that they only succeed by having far more money and lying, but with the barrage of news and talk and magazine articles and blogs about money, plus the Republican Recession, it became easy to forget just how un-American the Republican Philosophy is.

The huge majority of Americans aren't supporters of a Libertarian philosophy of might makes right. They're not into much of any political or economic philosophy. They just want a decent life.

The Republican party has always been the party of the rich; the Republican party is now the party of the rich; and the Republican party will always be the party of the rich. But not many people are rich and most people don't expect they will become rich. And the voters who vote Republican have to be tricked into doing so.

Again, Americans may be angry about government, but they're angry that the government isn't doing more, not that it's doing too much. Americans simply want a nice, stable economy.

It was good to be reminded of that.

Originally posted to A Southerner in Yankeeland on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:52 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So true. (15+ / 0-)

    Even in business school they teach that up to a point more money is an incentive to hire and retain employees but above that employers have to offer other things like more vacation time.  

    Of course, that was in the 90's when employers were competing for skilled employees.

  •  good one (23+ / 0-)
    The discussion has drifted – and I don't think it's accidental – to a point where the only factor in judging a person is how much money they have. That's an anti-human, Republican way of looking at life. And it pervades all our media, all our entertainment, all our conversations. Everything, it seems, is filtered through the mesh of money.

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:10:18 PM PDT

    •  Well it gets that way when you can't afford to (9+ / 0-)

      go to the doctor and you are constantly gaming the system to keep a roof over your head and the kids need shoes and backpacks.

      •  True, the lack of enough money to survive ... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Illinois IRV, Dirtandiron, Chi, edrie

        ... and enable one to acquire basics like shoes for growing children can make the getting of money more important than just about anything.

        It's what happens after those needs are met that is the crux of what I think the diarist is talking about.

        When I hear Romney and his ilk demanding further tax cuts when they are already stashing money overseas to reduce their tax burden, I wonder, "How greedy can these people be?"

        "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

        by JBL55 on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 10:36:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, for people like Romney and Ryan (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indres, Dirtandiron, Chi

        and the megamillionaires who are bankrolling them, the point at which they had to even think about those things passed many, many millions ago.

        Why does Romney want so badly to give himself another $250,000 tax cut? That's peanuts to him.  But to the middle class family who is going to have to pick up the tab for his tax cut by paying a couple of thousand dollars more, that tax increase is not peanuts. It's real, and it would hurt.

        Money matters tremendously when you don't have enough of it for the basic necessities of life.  But I just don't understand people living in mansions whining about paying taxes when they're already paying a tax rate much lower than people who are dramatically poorer than they are.

        •  The greedy rich (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          No, not all the rich are greedy, but some sure are. Romney for one. He twists and turns his finances through every tax dodge his accountants can find or make up to get that last nickel. That's why he doesn't want to open his tax records up. He's probably used some dubious schemes which are not legitimate. The kicker is that this also keeps him from getting audited because if the IRS were to come down on him, it would be perceived as a partisan action.
          Another greedy rich person is the Donald. I remember some years ago that he was pranked. A reporter sent him rebate type checks of the sort you get from sending in proofs of purchase. The purpose was to see whether he would bother cashing them. Well, he endorsed them. $2, $1, even $.25! That shows you the mentality!  

        •  I know I'm giving them too much credit (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dirtandiron, Chi

          for foresight and deviousness, but I think of their desire for more tax cuts as truely wanting to hurt the middle class, and the economy in genereal, so his children have easy pickings.

          Mitt is a venture mobster, and thrives when the economy provides easy pickings for acquisition.  (the Sept 13th Rolling Stones article spells it out wonderfully).  Now granted, he is not in the position to take advantage of those opportunities right now, with trying to look at upstanding and all, but, he does have a bunch of sons who need to cut their teeth (along with his donor's offspring).  What better way to provide for his children, church and donors, than to lay out a feast of businesses waiting to be plundered.  And he sure knows how to take advantage of the situation.  A true 'Godfather'.

          Reminds me of the movie 'Men in Black', where the cockroach hopes there is carnage, to feed his kids.  (I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, but I'm sure you remember the scene toward the end).

          Now, I would normally try to convince you that I really don't think this, for I really don't, but after 2 wars for profit, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the true motivation.  At least, I'm providing the outlyer to frame the disscussion.  (even if it is in left field).

          p.s. Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster, so I tried to keep it short.  Still wondering about a group that would let me be a member.  

          p.p.s.  Nice to see our beloved leader roll up his sleeves, and I hope he means it.  Too bad Bubba raised the bar so high, it was almost impossible for O to top.  But dayum, Bubba sure did kick some butt.  Now it's Obamas turn.  Then it's our turn. Let's get this done.
  •  I wonder if what has happened (10+ / 0-)

    isn't so much that money came to dominate every collective conversation of importance in our culture (it has) as it is that this "money - only - money" mentality has pushed out all the other criteria out of public conversations altogether.

    The Republicans in their all or nothing way of the world turn it into either you love money or you hate it, and thus they throw out all of the other metrics and leave us with no discursive or analytic tools to conduct our collective and public conversations.

    Just babbling...

    btw: it is really hard to read your diary without the use of block quotes for the rude pundit quotes.  It would help your readers if you used them.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 03:39:30 PM PDT

    •  It's just so weird to me (26+ / 0-)

      I honestly don't want a mansion. I don't want to clean it, frankly. I don't want a staff to do all the simple things I can do for myself. I don't want those ridiculous clothes, I don't wear a watch, I live in New Orleans so if you know our roads, you know why the only thing I think when I see a Maserati is how much damage I'll do to the undercarriage with four inches of ground clearance. But I have had people say to me that I am just jealous of rich people. It's nothing like that. I don't have anything against rich people, I just know parasites are bad for me. Just because I don't like ticks doesn't mean I want to suck people's blood. I want to keep my blood. And I want to be able to live without always worrying about money. It's not much.

      Warning: Erwin Schroedinger will kill you like a cat in a box. Maybe.

      by strandedlad on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 08:29:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Conspicuous Consumption is Over Compensation (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wasatch, JBL55, elmo, indres, Yamara, Chi

        I almost bought a Maserati once, for my son.  I saw it in the classifieds (which tells how long ago that was) just up the coast.  It was advertised at a very attractive price, and I thought that all that flash and some performance, plus the need to perform constant maintenance, would be just the thing for a 17 year old.  It passed the test drive, albeit with some reservations because it was badly in need of a tune-up.  Certainly my son was enthusiastic.  I said I needed to check with a mechanic.

        "Don't do it," advised the European repair garage mechanic, "you'll kill him."  It turns out that the car didn't perform all that well until speeds approached 90, and from there up to about 130 it was a hell of a ride.  Of course, none of us have the skills and space to drive like that.  Basically, he said that those cars are for fading middle aged men, to compensate for all the deficiencies they know they have and to distract from their many flaws.  I figured he knew his cars and he knew his customers.

      •  I've had people tell me I am envious of rich peopl (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        because I don't think that that working people should have to take big pay cuts to subsidize tax cuts for the rich.

        Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

        by Dirtandiron on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 06:00:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is a common trope on the right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It is also a glaring tell for the fundamentally adolescent mindset of those that resort to it. It's nothing more than a variation on the old chestnut used by protective mothers everywhere when their child comes home in tears after being teased and heckled by their classmates: "Don't cry dear, they're just jealous."

          Never fail to point this out when confronted by such.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:23:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for a great diary ! Your writing and that (13+ / 0-)

    Of The Rude Pundit help put us back to a perspective of caring what happens to others and caring about the consequences of one's actions. I hope enough people can cause this America to return instead of the awful Republican
    course they have charted. Anti-American indeed. They disgust me.

  •  The topic that makes many conservatives (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Melanie in IA, wasatch, Dirtandiron, Chi

    vote for Republicans,
    is sex.

    Read my diary on that topic:

  •  Epiphany is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wasatch, JBL55, indres

    when the brain says
    of course.To the truth that was right their in font of you.That you did not see.

  •  I am not against (9+ / 0-)

    a sly dig at the Republican rich and famous through pointing up their materialism. I certainly agree that materialism can and does destroy satisfaction with other, more important, parts of life. Greed and envy were declared two of the seven deadly sins in the Middle Ages for a reason.
    However Michelle's speech, and Obama's as well, contain what I would consider code words for austerity through debt reduction. Perhaps this is warranted; our Tories, Angela Merkel, and a good bit of the Right in Europe think so as well. However, if you think times are hard now, they might be much worse down the road, as the remainder of what's left of the social safety net is shredded. Maybe people don't want to start up their own gun store, but most are in favour of public education, disability payments, and libraries. From bitter personal experience, a lot of these programs go south during austerity drives.

    "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

    by northsylvania on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 11:42:41 PM PDT

    •  The sad realism vs the insane fantasists (8+ / 0-)

      That is how things have come down.

      It is probably not time now for pointing out that the candidate we have is a technocrat, that he still is a technocrat, that he deferred to Congress for the objectives that would have been significant. We have been given such a grinning monster of a choice that we are left with the "remember Seamus" argument:

      Whatever flaws one may note, one of these men is humane, and the other is not. If one will do bad things with regret and the other will do horrific things without any emotion at all, the choice is with the former.

      If money is the root of all evil, then what is Mitt Romney?

      by The Geogre on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 03:40:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, absolutely. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Geogre

        I wish the British had been as sensible.

        "There's a crack in everything; that's how the light gets in". Leonard Cohen

        by northsylvania on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:55:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What party first means (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Some people have glommed onto the observation that the GOP's party unification drive is "European style parliamentary politics" in a nation without a parliamentary system. It's true as far as it goes, but there is a much worse and more dangerous consequence than merely playing Party.

          When the GOP decides that it needs to act like a corporation -- in eternal warfare with the competing "brand" and that in bello jus omnes, that they must see the "other guy" go out of business, when they decide that all decisions have to be made on the basis of promotion of the "brand" rather than any material or philosophical gain -- then they are replicating the ground conditions for dictatorship. The working dictatorships have come from parliamentary party systems where the Party gets ownership of the government.

          You can't work a Papa Doc/Baby Doc thing very well, but you can run a "the Party offers you this or that, and it decides that one will get on television and the other will not."

          If money is the root of all evil, then what is Mitt Romney?

          by The Geogre on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 05:48:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's called citizenship (7+ / 0-)

    and Democrats all over the Nation know that means more than "I've got mine."

    If peace is to prevail we all have to become foes of violence.

    by spacejam on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 03:06:44 AM PDT

  •  "Lifestyles of the Richen Famess" -> Idol (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    salmo, wasatch, starduster

    Do you remember "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous," which was outright pornography for the disappointed? Well, there is a direct line between that (Australian) import and the reality shows (by Mark Burnett) and the British import of "American Idol." Each of them offering the accoutrements of wealth as if it were the essence of it, the excrescence of fame as if it were achievement. Each said, "Behold this marker of another thing (class, talent), and desire it while ignoring the inequities and vacuities behind the substance."

    It did NOT work. It multiplied. It was cheap. It took over. There was no choice, for it led to "network synergies." Appearing on your favorite show, a wrestling star from that reality show where he got rejected by the woman looking for eternal romance under the name of love.

    If money is the root of all evil, then what is Mitt Romney?

    by The Geogre on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 03:36:36 AM PDT

  •  Are drug lords Entrepreneurs? The GOP's... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55, starduster, Dirtandiron

    worship of successful businessmen, including vampire capitalists like Romney always carefully omits the human costs, the human suffering involved in many of these "entrepreneurs" quest for personal wealth.  

    If a person's worth is only measured by their wealth and success in business, then, by republican values, they must truly admire successful drug lords and organized criminals like drug dealer Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, notorious drug lord and murderer, Pablo Escobar.

    ...Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera, is tied for the 1,153rd position on Forbes’ list of billionaires, ranks #10 on the publication’s Mexican rich list and number 55 on its list of powerful people....

    ...The now dead cocaine king’s (Escobar) net worth at $25 billion....

    In 1986, Fortune Magazine released a list of their Top 50 Mafia Bosses and organized crime figures...”Organized crime is, among other things, a potent economic force...Yet rarely, if ever, has the press examined the mob as a business, one that has its own management style and culture…” Fortune Magazine’s position was elaborated, stating that ”the organization chart of a crime family or syndicate mirrors the management structure of a corporation...”

    ...Sure, there are a mountain of logistical barriers to overcome when getting into the drug trade, or any major criminal organization...Maybe Fortune Magazine was right: legal or illegal, business is all about problem solving and organizational structure. Who knew?!

    While the supposedly "legitimate" businesses of entrepreneurs like Romney stay within the laws, they also have the power to influence legislators to write the laws to favor them, and to influence regulators to go easy on them.

    The party that describes itself as a "family values" party in reality worships the making and accumulation of money.  They've built a fantasy of the rugged individual businessman who builds multinational corporations single-handedly and then benevolently provides employment for countless numbers of people.  

    The truth is, just building a business and employing people doesn't make that businessman or women a good person or a benefit to society.  Looking objectively look at the human costs of the "success" of Entrepreneurs like wealthy drug lords, mob bosses, and yes, even vampire capitalists, is it a good thing for society at large, or mainly just a good thing for those who personally profit from the success?

    •  this is one of the theses of The Wire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      which is David Simon's brilliant HBO drama, now concluded.
      60 episodes of brilliance on film. Greek tragedy where our broken and corrupt institutions are the gods throwing thunderbolts at hapless humans. Compelling and entertaining while provoking a lot of serious thought about our urban society.

      The drug war is present throughout the series, from the viewpoint of both the street and the police. And it is a business.

      But the second season's foreground is the dying docks and the dying unions and the Death of Work, which puts the parallel economy of the drug business in perspective. (Other seasons look at the schools and the media. "All the pieces matter".

       In earlier days, people moved to Baltimore for the work, in factories, docks, and all the businesses that flowed from that and supported it. They formed communities. Now we see shuttered factories and streets full of vacant rowhouses along with the gentrified development projects for the lucky ones whose livelihoods weren't outsourced.

      Competition in this business has brutal results, but the guys at the top are wealthy and smart, as well as ruthless. Even some of the low-level cannon fodder have enough drive and smarts to have succeeded if they'd had options. They have a work ethic (enforced by both necessity and the brutal nature of the business). There has always been a market for drugs, but with so few options for decent work (plus the influx of crack cocaine in the 80's), that market exploded.

      Another wrinkle is that the drug profits go everywhere, contributing to the incentive to basically let it ride, even with the thousands who get sent to prison. More options wouldn't kill the business, but surely would put a dent in it, I think.

      It's a lucrative business for the few, and at least a wage for the rest, or a way to get through another day without so much pain for the addicts.

      Drugs are big business, and the money does flow to people not directly in the drug business (plus all the govt money paying for the failed war against it). It's insanely corruptive.

      Without the death of work and unions, there would at least  be more options and incentives. At least, that's my interpretation.

  •  Money is a tool, like the script we use to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    write and read.  Money tracks what we owe each other, ideally.  I say "ideally," because money, along with a little help from the law, has been transformed into a tool of subordination.  
    "No free lunch" is shorthand for, if you don't first do what someone wants enough to pay you, you're not going to eat.
    The reason this system is enforceable is because almost all of the resources humans need to survive (food, water, shelter) have been dedicated to the exclusive use of someone as "private property," and that someone is, by virtue of having been given that property (which was originally stolen from the native inhabitants) in the form of granted rights:

    water rights
    mineral rights
    grazing rights
    logging rights
    hunting rights
    trapping rights
    fishing rights
    landing rights
    But, don't blame the recipients of those rights.  From the start, property rights had to be at the head of the national agenda, otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to deprive large segments of the population of their God-given human rights.  See, God was recognized as having given and then, before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, people who had been purchased as property, as well as wives and children were deprived of their human and civil rights.  And it was all legal.
    Even though the deprivation of rights was supposed to be reserved as punishment for proven crime, in practice the majority of the citizenry (people born in this land) were innocent and deprived.
    Much was made of the innocence of people suspected of having done wrong but the basic premise that individual behavior is presumably good was pretty much overlooked. Children were put to work and reading and writing was largely overlooked for the majority. Never mind that it was prohibited to some.
    We may thing that reading and writing skills are no longer a deficit.  But, the fact is that 30% of American adults are functionally illiterate. And there's people who want to keep them that way because "what they don't know can't hurt them!" snark
    However, now that everybody's been hooked on using money for almost all their trade and exchange, there's no easier way to deprive people of their labor and their freedom and their ability to sustain themselves than by restricting the amount of money available to mediate their transactions.  Hoarding money has the same effect as if all vowels were suddenly withdrawn from circulation.  Using the English language without vowels would be really difficult, as far as the written word is concerned.  Of course, people could still say whatever they need to say, but their effectiveness would be seriously restricted.  And so it is when people don't have enough money because employers, bankers, loan sharks, merchants and the tax man cheat them.
    Congress keeps talking about cutting taxes, but that's a scam to disguise the fact that they handed over management of the currency to the banks AND give them an even sweeter deal by paying the banksters interest to borrow the money back for spending on public purposes.
    That's why everybody's talking about money.  They know there's a scam underway, but they haven't figured out how it works. And politicians of every stripe like using money to reward and punish.
    Is Barack Obama sincere about the deficit or is it just a talking point to force some effort to get Wall Street to release their hoard?  Because, in addition to the Congress having abrogated their responsibilities, Wall Street is hoarding our money until the dividends and interest (unearned income) increase.  They don't like that where they used to get 8.1% in 1991, they get just 2.5% now.  Some people are still convinced that if there's less money around, each dollar will be worth more.  That money is worthless just doesn't compute. YET.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

  •  Republican psychology (0+ / 0-)
    The truth is that most people don't want to start businesses. They want jobs or better lives and if they get it through the government, then at least it's a fuckin' paycheck.
    The Republican pundits look down on anyone who is an employee of anyone else. That's how they get the small businessperson who is close to bankruptcy to vote for Republicans, by making them identify with the rich non-taxpayers like Romney and Trump.

    Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

    by Dirtandiron on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:24:17 PM PDT

  •  You nailed it (0+ / 0-)

    The paradoxical reality behind GOP politics is that for all their posturing as defenders of white, middle class, fifties style values, they are, in actuality, contemptuous of those that hold them. The small scale dream of secure employment sufficient to purchase a home and care for a family has no place in a political vision calling for "government of wealth, by wealth and for wealth."  

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 07:39:02 PM PDT

  •  Reminds me of a poll I read a long time ago. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It was a study of the considerations people take into account when looking for a new job -- things like salary, working conditions, perks, benefits, family adjustments, location, etc. etc.

    The results, in general, showed that salary was about the third most important factor (I don't actually remember what first and second were).

    There was one big exception to this result. People who had positions as managers, heads of departments, etc almost consistently listed salary as the most important factor.

    None of this makes a bit of difference if they don't count your vote.

    by Toddlerbob on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:58:13 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site