OT - Obama

On Jan 20, 4:43*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Ruff misses the point - the rich have more than enough material
possessions. The rich always end up conducting class war on the middle
class, not for more money per say, but for more power. A strong middle
class has political power, a subsistence class does not. And in the end,
power over others is what they find most satisfying.

Not so much missed as failed to mention. It's true that power is one
of the prime motives for wealth. This is one reason why creating a
large middle class is a hard sell to the rich that already exist in a
society. In the US I think the prime motive was the threat of
communism. Greater overall wealth meant more money for more and better
weapons, increased world political clout, etc. In other words it was a
matter of survival. Now that the threat has disappeared, and the PTB
in the US have achieved hegemony, it is time to gut the middle class
and let our society assume it's "natural" order. I expect this to
continue unless/until there is sufficient survival motive again. They
look forward to being able to hire hoards of good looking young
servants that actually speak english, for peanuts.

On Jan 20, 7:21*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
It must be awful to go through life always
lusting after more and more.

The Buddha identified this as a root cause of suffering. Unfortunately
it afflicts most of the relatively poor as well as the rich.

"Ron Ruff" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 4:43 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Ruff misses the point - the rich have more than enough material
possessions. The rich always end up conducting class war on the middle
class, not for more money per say, but for more power. A strong middle
class has political power, a subsistence class does not. And in the end,
power over others is what they find most satisfying.

Not so much missed as failed to mention. It's true that power is one
of the prime motives for wealth. This is one reason why creating a
large middle class is a hard sell to the rich that already exist in a
society. In the US I think the prime motive was the threat of
communism. Greater overall wealth meant more money for more and better
weapons, increased world political clout, etc. In other words it was a
matter of survival. Now that the threat has disappeared, and the PTB
in the US have achieved hegemony, it is time to gut the middle class
and let our society assume it's "natural" order. I expect this to
continue unless/until there is sufficient survival motive again. They
look forward to being able to hire hoards of good looking young
servants that actually speak english, for peanuts.

The cynicism expressed above is right up my alley, but society has moved
beyond all of that. Mass ignorance is necessary for most of what Ruff fears,
and the media of today will forever make that impossible. One other thing
that needs to be noted is that the US is a nation of lawyers. That alone
means that there will be wrangling over everything forever. The rich in the
US will never be as well off or as secure as the rich in other nations.

If the middle class is destroyed, you will have an extremely large poor
class that will not take kindly to being submerged. The one thing that
scares that pants off of the rich is violence and Americans are prone to
violence when provoked. The last thing the rich should want is the
destruction of the middle class. It is their only defense against the poor
in a democratic republic.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Ron Ruff" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 4:43 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Ruff misses the point - the rich have more than enough material
possessions. The rich always end up conducting class war on the middle
class, not for more money per say, but for more power. A strong middle
class has political power, a subsistence class does not. And in the end,
power over others is what they find most satisfying.

Not so much missed as failed to mention. It's true that power is one
of the prime motives for wealth. This is one reason why creating a
large middle class is a hard sell to the rich that already exist in a
society. In the US I think the prime motive was the threat of
communism. Greater overall wealth meant more money for more and better
weapons, increased world political clout, etc. In other words it was a
matter of survival. Now that the threat has disappeared, and the PTB
in the US have achieved hegemony, it is time to gut the middle class
and let our society assume it's "natural" order. I expect this to
continue unless/until there is sufficient survival motive again. They
look forward to being able to hire hoards of good looking young
servants that actually speak english, for peanuts.

The cynicism expressed above is right up my alley, but society has moved
beyond all of that. Mass ignorance is necessary for most of what Ruff fears,
and the media of today will forever make that impossible. One other thing
that needs to be noted is that the US is a nation of lawyers. That alone
means that there will be wrangling over everything forever. The rich in the
US will never be as well off or as secure as the rich in other nations.

The US was founded on protecting the privilege of the white, male upper
class.

The USian mass media is owned by the rich - the only threat is the
diversification provided by the Internet, which is why there are
attempts to limit that freedom, e.g. allowing Internet providers to
block sites that provide news from an "unapproved" viewpoint.

If the middle class is destroyed, you will have an extremely large poor
class that will not take kindly to being submerged. The one thing that
scares that pants off of the rich is violence and Americans are prone to
violence when provoked. The last thing the rich should want is the
destruction of the middle class. It is their only defense against the poor
in a democratic republic.

The poor in the US, when things get bad enough, will likely be
manipulated into supporting a right-wing military dictatorship. The past
of South and Central America is likely the future of the US. And no, the
EU will not be allowing open immigration either.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"The purpose of the slum, is to confine those who have no power
and perpetuate their powerlessness. ... The slum is little more
than a domestic colony which leaves its inhabitants dominated
politically, exploited economically, segregated and humiliated
at every turn." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Ron Ruff misses the point - the rich have more than enough material
possessions. The rich always end up conducting class war on the middle
class, not for more money per say, but for more power. A strong middle
class has political power, a subsistence class does not. And in the end,
power over others is what they find most satisfying.

Ron Ruff wrote:
Not so much missed as failed to mention. It's true that power is one
of the prime motives for wealth. This is one reason why creating a
large middle class is a hard sell to the rich that already exist in a
society. In the US I think the prime motive was the threat of
communism. Greater overall wealth meant more money for more and better
weapons, increased world political clout, etc. In other words it was a
matter of survival. Now that the threat has disappeared, and the PTB
in the US have achieved hegemony, it is time to gut the middle class
and let our society assume it's "natural" order. I expect this to
continue unless/until there is sufficient survival motive again. They
look forward to being able to hire hoards of good looking young
servants that actually speak english, for peanuts.

Hoard those peanuts with your horde of servants.

The extremely rich in USA are primarily first generation
i.e. they made it themselves. Different attitudes from
inherited wealth and at any rate their children will
dissipate it soon enough. Typical story:
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/39112867.html



--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Jan 20, 11:33*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
The cynicism expressed above is right up my alley, but society has moved
beyond all of that. Mass ignorance is necessary for most of what Ruff fears,
and the media of today will forever make that impossible. One other thing
that needs to be noted is that the US is a nation of lawyers. That alone
means that there will be wrangling over everything forever. The rich in the
US will never be as well off or as secure as the rich in other nations.

I wish I could share your optimism... but in my estimation the level
of ignorance is increasing rather than on the decline. The first order
of deception is to constantly tell people that things are great,
getting better etc... even though we've been in steady economic
decline since the 70s. The next is to divert their attention, with
fear being the best mode. The next is to blame whatever hardships they
may be aware of on something other than what is truly responsible.

Regarding the lawyers, they work for wherever the money is. AFAIK
policies that gut the middle class are not against the law.

If the middle class is destroyed, you will have an extremely large poor
class that will not take kindly to being submerged. The one thing that
scares that pants off of the rich is violence and Americans are prone to
violence when provoked. The last thing the rich should want is the
destruction of the middle class. It is their only defense against the poor
in a democratic republic.

Despots all over the world and throughout history seem to have managed
this quite well. I think the propaganda in this country will be easily
sufficient to quell violence or redirect it. Besides, we currently
don't even know who most of the people are who are pulling the
strings, let alone *where* they are. They could easily live in a nice
safe island enclave somewhere if they wished, jetting to the mainland
to enjoy cultural delights with a bevy of armed guards. We are
currently taught to revere and bow down to such important persons. I
don't see that changing.

I've been pondering the implications of universal wealth and what
reasons the PTB would have for supporting it. As I mentioned earlier,
a country's power is tied to it's collective wealth, and since this is
much greater when a strong middle class is supported, this is exactly
what was done while we were in direct competition with the USSR for
global domination. Since we won that "war", there is no longer a need
for universal wealth. And now that investment has gone decidedly
"global" I suspect that there may *never* be a need for it. Power
rests more with the corporations than with political/geographic
entities, and corporate interests are increasingly global. The enemy
would be hostile corporate interests, but how would such a battle be
fought? With bombs and missiles?

On the other hand it's hard for me to imagine that the PTB would grow
tired of the game of increasing wealth through universal prosperity
and increased markets. There is a still a huge part of the world out
there that is unable to afford Cokes and Big Macs. In fact the
potential market increases are so huge abroad that the US market
hardly matters. That is why the middle class here is being allowed to
decline. The pastures are so much greener elsewhere. No, we won't sink
to the level of 3rd world poverty, but we will see a steady downward
slide for many decades to come. And the reason is that our prosperity
does not matter to those in control... they are looking to conquer and
dominate new markets elsewhere... often at our expense.

Yes, it's becoming clearer now. Ever wonder why the US dove into a
"global economy" when it was obviously detrimental to most of it's
citizens? It is because there was greater money to be made by
supporting the development of poor countries, at our expense.
Directly. We pay for it and they reap the benefits. Not only direct
return on investment, but being on the ground floor of *selling* in
these markets as the populace gains enough wealth to actually buy
things. No wonder the US consumer is an afterthought... or rather
easily sacrificed... when there is the potential of dominating the
billions of other consumers in the world!

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
[...]
The USian mass media is owned by the rich - the only threat is the
diversification provided by the Internet, which is why there are attempts
to limit that freedom, e.g. allowing Internet providers to block sites
that provide news from an "unapproved" viewpoint.

Who owns what and what is expressed are often quite different. The mass
media in this country is liberal to the core except for a few exceptions.
They are all owned by the rich. Why are they not all conservative?

If the middle class is destroyed, you will have an extremely large poor
class that will not take kindly to being submerged. The one thing that
scares that pants off of the rich is violence and Americans are prone to
violence when provoked. The last thing the rich should want is the
destruction of the middle class. It is their only defense against the
poor in a democratic republic.

The poor in the US, when things get bad enough, will likely be manipulated
into supporting a right-wing military dictatorship. The past of South and
Central America is likely the future of the US. And no, the EU will not be
allowing open immigration either.

Americans will never be ignorant enough for what you fear. Apples and
oranges again ... as usual.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Ron Ruff" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 11:33 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
The cynicism expressed above is right up my alley, but society has moved
beyond all of that. Mass ignorance is necessary for most of what Ruff
fears,
and the media of today will forever make that impossible. One other thing
that needs to be noted is that the US is a nation of lawyers. That alone
means that there will be wrangling over everything forever. The rich in
the
US will never be as well off or as secure as the rich in other nations.

I wish I could share your optimism... but in my estimation the level
of ignorance is increasing rather than on the decline. The first order
of deception is to constantly tell people that things are great,
getting better etc... even though we've been in steady economic
decline since the 70s. The next is to divert their attention, with
fear being the best mode. The next is to blame whatever hardships they
may be aware of on something other than what is truly responsible.

Everyone can see those those types of ruses and deceptions for what they
are. The level of ignorance is decreasing due to the electronic media.

Regarding the lawyers, they work for wherever the money is. AFAIK
policies that gut the middle class are not against the law.

Lawyers are a rambunctious lot and do all kinds of crazy things. Many do not
always go where the money is. Some of them are idealists.

If the middle class is destroyed, you will have an extremely large poor
class that will not take kindly to being submerged. The one thing that
scares that pants off of the rich is violence and Americans are prone to
violence when provoked. The last thing the rich should want is the
destruction of the middle class. It is their only defense against the poor
in a democratic republic.

Despots all over the world and throughout history seem to have managed
this quite well. I think the propaganda in this country will be easily
sufficient to quell violence or redirect it. Besides, we currently
don't even know who most of the people are who are pulling the
strings, let alone *where* they are. They could easily live in a nice
safe island enclave somewhere if they wished, jetting to the mainland
to enjoy cultural delights with a bevy of armed guards. We are
currently taught to revere and bow down to such important persons. I
don't see that changing.

The mass of men must have enough to live on. Citizens cannot be turned into
serfs. The rich and well off will always have to pay attention to the
masses. And the American masses are not fatalists like the masses in most
third world nations.

I've been pondering the implications of universal wealth and what
reasons the PTB would have for supporting it. As I mentioned earlier,
a country's power is tied to it's collective wealth, and since this is
much greater when a strong middle class is supported, this is exactly
what was done while we were in direct competition with the USSR for
global domination. Since we won that "war", there is no longer a need
for universal wealth. And now that investment has gone decidedly
"global" I suspect that there may *never* be a need for it. Power
rests more with the corporations than with political/geographic
entities, and corporate interests are increasingly global. The enemy
would be hostile corporate interests, but how would such a battle be
fought? With bombs and missiles?

There will always be enemies, both real and perceived, until the end of
time. Even so, I don't think anything you have said in the above paragraph
has any relevance to anything. Universal wealth? What the hell is that?

On the other hand it's hard for me to imagine that the PTB would grow
tired of the game of increasing wealth through universal prosperity
and increased markets. There is a still a huge part of the world out
there that is unable to afford Cokes and Big Macs. In fact the
potential market increases are so huge abroad that the US market
hardly matters. That is why the middle class here is being allowed to
decline. The pastures are so much greener elsewhere. No, we won't sink
to the level of 3rd world poverty, but we will see a steady downward
slide for many decades to come. And the reason is that our prosperity
does not matter to those in control... they are looking to conquer and
dominate new markets elsewhere... often at our expense.

Globalism will only extend so far. The pendulum will soon swing back.

Yes, it's becoming clearer now. Ever wonder why the US dove into a
"global economy" when it was obviously detrimental to most of it's
citizens? It is because there was greater money to be made by
supporting the development of poor countries, at our expense.
Directly. We pay for it and they reap the benefits. Not only direct
return on investment, but being on the ground floor of *selling* in
these markets as the populace gains enough wealth to actually buy
things. No wonder the US consumer is an afterthought... or rather
easily sacrificed... when there is the potential of dominating the
billions of other consumers in the world!

American consumers also reap tremendous benefits from globalism. I am
reminded of that every time I go to Wal-Mart to buy something. In fact,
Wal-Mart has done more to reign in inflation than any government program
that I know of.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"AMuzi" wrote in message
...
[...]
The extremely rich in USA are primarily first generation i.e. they made it
themselves. Different attitudes from inherited wealth and at any rate
their children will dissipate it soon enough. Typical story:
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/39112867.html

Yes, and the world's literature is also full of such stories. Sons seldom
resemble their fathers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Andrew Muzi wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Ron Ruff misses the point - the rich have more than enough material
possessions. The rich always end up conducting class war on the middle
class, not for more money per say, but for more power. A strong middle
class has political power, a subsistence class does not. And in the end,
power over others is what they find most satisfying.

Ron Ruff wrote:
Not so much missed as failed to mention. It's true that power is one
of the prime motives for wealth. This is one reason why creating a
large middle class is a hard sell to the rich that already exist in a
society. In the US I think the prime motive was the threat of
communism. Greater overall wealth meant more money for more and better
weapons, increased world political clout, etc. In other words it was a
matter of survival. Now that the threat has disappeared, and the PTB
in the US have achieved hegemony, it is time to gut the middle class
and let our society assume it's "natural" order. I expect this to
continue unless/until there is sufficient survival motive again. They
look forward to being able to hire hoards of good looking young
servants that actually speak english, for peanuts.

Hoard those peanuts with your horde of servants.

The extremely rich in USA are primarily first generation i.e. they made
it themselves. Different attitudes from inherited wealth and at any rate
their children will dissipate it soon enough. Typical story:
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/39112867.html

Citation for this?

The US had much greater upward social mobility that any other county
from the early 1950's to the mid 1970's. Then the right-wing came into
power and the gains have been steadily reversed for 3½ decades, to the
point that the "American Dream" is dead. In the meanwhile, the social
democracies of Western Europe have surpassed the US, with ever
increasing levels of both standard of living and quality of life.

"The European Union (EU) is the world's largest and most
competitive economy, and most of those living in it are
wealthier, healthier, and happier than most Americans.
Europeans work shorter hours, have a greater say in how
their employers behave, receive lengthy paid vacations and
paid parental leave, can rely on guaranteed paid pensions,
have free or extremely inexpensive comprehensive and
preventative health care, enjoy free or extremely inexpensive
educations from preschool through college, impose half the
per-capita environmental damage of Americans, endure a
fraction of the violence found in the United States, imprison
a fraction of the prisoners locked up here, and benefit from
democratic representation, engagement, and civil liberties
unimagined in the land where we're teased that the world hates
our rather mediocre "freedoms." - David Swanson

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"The purpose of the slum, is to confine those who have no power
and perpetuate their powerlessness. ... The slum is little more
than a domestic colony which leaves its inhabitants dominated
politically, exploited economically, segregated and humiliated
at every turn." - Martin Luther King Jr.