FDR vs. Barack Obama - and, Wall Street: the Greatest Monetary Heist in History

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, May 9, 2009.

  1. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    When Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated in March, 1933, the United States was at the nadir of the worst depression in history. 25% of the workforce was unemployed. 2 million were homeless.


    By the evening of the March 4th inauguration, 32 of the 48 states had closed their banks. The New York Federal Reserve Bank was unable to open on the 5th, as huge sums had been withdrawn by panicky customers in previous days. Beginning with his inauguration address, Roosevelt began blaming the economic crisis on bankers and financiers, the quest for profit, and the self-interest basis of capitalism:

    "Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men... The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."



    FDR saw "social values", americans helping americans, redistributing the wealth so that all are provided for to help get us out of the economic depression (through national agencies he created such as the Works Project Administration and the National Recovery Administration), as a much greater public good than "the self-interest basis of capitalism" or "mere monetary profit". Roosevelt was not big on an economic philosophy that centered mostly around a (Milton Friedman-style) Market Economy. He would have certainly loathed the capitalism we have today where a corporation hires workers as a labour commodity to produce material wealth and boost shareholder profits.

    His inauguration on March 4, 1933, occurred exactly in the middle of a bank panic. Roosevelt thought that the Depression was caused in part by people no longer spending or investing because they were afraid. Fear played a large part in moving a stock market crash and a recession into banks collapsing and a Great Depression. This was the backdrop for FDR's famous line on March 4: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

    FDR was governor of New York when he began campaigning for president in the 1932 election (he had built up a strong political base as governor of the nation's most populous state. He built a national coalition with personal allies such as newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and Irish leader Joseph Kennedy, Sr.). After Texas, when Roosevelt clinched the democratic nomination, he said in his acceptance speech:

    "Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth. I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms."

    ------------------------------

    It's pretty clear that Barack Obama does not share the socialist-leaning philosophies of FDR, at least, not to FDR's extent. Hopefully, when the state stimulus monies kick in, we will get this economy moving again. Both economist Paul Krugman and Naomi Klein feel that the Wall Street and bank bailouts -- all those hundreds of billions of dollars going to Bank of Ameica and Citigroup and AIG to prop up the collapse of an internationally-connected financial system -- will be remembered as the greatest monetary heist in history. The greatest tranfer of public wealth into private hands.

    Paul Krugman thinks the stimulus package (Obama's plan to support jobs and output with a large, temporary rise in federal spending), as opposed to a Wall Street Bailout (propping up the very people who got us into this mess in the first place) is a good thing. Krugman, in fact, thinks the stimulus package needed to be 2 to 3 times bigger, giving monetary aid directly back to the people, not corporations. Via work programs and social services the way FDR did.

    Why is the redistribution of wealth going to corporations? I'm starting to lose heart in Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke's explanations of how it's needed to prevent an international collapse. Those hundreds of billions of dollar are OUR money, taxpayer money. Corporations make billions of dollars in profits (from american citizens), and when their bad, even criminal, business practice lead the corporations to collapse, they double-dip, they come right back to the american citizen to give them more money. We should NOT be redistributing our money back in their direction. We should be redistributing it back to help average americans, which is the mark of true liberalism, the FDR solution.

    And when is this system of governmental regulations we were promised going to kick in? Without regulating capitalism, we are back to square one. We are back to corporate greed and what FDR, one of our greatest presidents, called the self-interest basis of capitalism.
     
    #1 D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse, May 9, 2009
    Last edited: May 9, 2009
  2. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    :lmao:
    Sorry, WT...couldn't resist!
     
  3. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks, HG. I fixed it (I suffer from dyslexia & sometimes see things differently in my mind than what's typed out!)
     
  4. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Today's History Lesson, and it's obvious implications, is brought to you by Willtom, Chicago, 60609.


    :wink:
     
  5. pym

    pym New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know..in a way i believe Barack Obama is way more stiffed than FDR was. I can't say for sure exactly, but last year i wanted to see what the USA actually had to fall back on. To me, that means 'HARD' assets. Not fucking paper stocks. So i checked to see what Fort Knox had {i posted before on this.} We only have at present value a Half Trillion dollars in Gold Assets.:frown1: When i investigated further......it became very mysterious to track how much gold has been accumulated and come and gone. I did see that prior to WW2 the bullion amount was approximately 4 times the amount it is estimated to be now. I saw that there has been no 'official' appraisel of the bullion amount since the early 60's......
    Furthermore in my checks around the internet on this subject, nearly half that amount {since WW2 era} more or less 'WENT AWAY' during the mid 60's{supposedly}. I saw speculations about President Johnson and Israel and vast transfers of bullion. VERY mysterious stuff. Impossible to verify.
    If the amounts of bullion that were cataloged during FDR's time were to be believed, it would seem to me that the USA had in reserve enough tangible assets to be considered still in the Black. And the New Deal had to be funded from 'Somewhere'. Think of all the public works and infrastructure that was built in that era.
    Not so with the current 11 trillion dollar debt handoff. As far as i can tell it is what it is.....an 11 trillion dollar and rising DEBT.....with Nothing to fall back on. What is my point?
    How can anyone wish to shoulder such an incredible burden as Mr. Obama has just done? How can any American with a conscience casually call this man an ASS-HOLE? As i have witnessed on this forum.
    The best the political opposition can come up with is a constant repeating of the same lies......over and over and over again.
    So many memorable catch phrases to start the new millenium with:
    We do not torture
    Stay the course
    Weapons of Mass Destruction
    'Patriot' Act
    Various levels of terrorist {fear} levels in differing hues.
    Contrast that with FDR's "The only thing we have to fear,is fear itself"

    And now its:
    Socialism!
    Nationalism!
    Facism!

    I remember reading about the religous Schisms.......are we entering a new Schism era? Will the new Orthodoxies and Protestmants to follow be proclaimed from a Fox's Mouth? Will we listen? Should I?
    What a confusing era to be living through. I was pretty content with my 60's and 70's Liberal views. But now i feel like i am becoming irrelevant in this new world order. People think i am a silly old fool, driving my American made Ford......still checking labels for American made stuff when i shop....
    Supporting my community as best i can. Am i lost in the wilderness?

    Sorry if i'm rambling ANDY ROONEY style.
    I'm still ok with my man OBAMA. :unitedstates:
     
  6. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    You could smell the fear from Super Tuesday 2008 forward, when Hillary woke up from her coronation dream, veered sharply to the right and threw the kitchen sink. It didn't work, though Secretary of State is quite the consolation prize.

    It became overwhelming when McCain tried to steal as much thunder as he could from Obama's acceptance speech at Mile High stadium by announcing an unvetted, profoundly incurious "fellow maverick" whose only real national press up until then had been a puff-piece profile for Vogue Magazine, giving her a red-meat fire-breathing speech in St Paul then hiding her from all press for two weeks, only to have her disastrous TV interviews with Charley Gibson and Katie Couric as follow-up. Is asking what newspaper a VP candidate reads really "gotcha journalism", especially when the candidate in question was a journalism major in college?

    The stench of panic rose into whole new levels of shrill, barn-burning "rallies" that put McCain in the position of defending Obama against the lies his own party was spewing about him ("No, ma'am, he's not a Muslim") even as his running mate was calling him everything from a socialist to a terrorist-by-association. It was so ugly that even North Carolina and Indiana turned blue on election day, as did a share of Nebraska's electoral votes.

    The fear and panic are palpable in most of the right-of-center blogosphere: check out Powerline or Red State, or just skip right to Hannity's message board where a thread calling for armed revolution was finally taken down after being allowed to fester in seditious hateful nonsense for over a week.

    For the first time in my life, there's traction within a core of one of the two major American political parties in the topic of seccessation! And it's only been three months (not even!). How can people be so "patriotic" that they'd rather destroy the country than accept the fact that they lost an election?

    Psssst: I've got a secret for you: they're called elections. They happen every two years; if you don't like the way things are going, vote! But this rediculous, childish tantrum-throwing/name calling (a fascist and a socialist? Really?) grab-my-toys-and-leave bullshit is unparalleled in my lifetime outside of the loony survivalist/seperatists and the right-wing domestic terrorists like McVeigh and Eric Rudolph who, unlike the Weathermen, actually killed people.

    Get a fucking grip, you whiney pillow-biting bedwetting bitches on the right. I'm sick and fucking tired of the fear coming from your side: it's just fucking sickening. Grow up, man up and vote or STFU.
     
  7. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX

    precisely because the elected party will be destroying the country, and the values that created it
     
  8. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    That's bullshit. You're just freaked-out scared, Nick. Admit it. You have before, multiple times.

    You want change? Vote change.
     
  9. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    If socialism is distribution of wealth, capitalism is distribution of debt. Take for example insurance, when that 4m dollar house in a flood zone or on the coast line collapses with an owner with plenty of money to replace it that has taken an insurance policy, it raises the prices of insurance policies for everyone in the system. Instead of paying out the cost of his or her special place which is in a disaster area, paying the debts which they have accrued, those debts are essentially passed on to the other insurance customers. The same thing has occurred with this bail-out, the companies which have made poor management decisions and unwittingly led their company into a disaster area, are now being paid for by the government, passing along moneys which could have gone to improving power, roads, food supply, or any other myriad of places which represent tangible gains in quality of life for the people. Without those gains in quality of life, prices keep rising, passing on the cost to the population rather than the individuals who are responsible for the situation. As debt compounds on debt, it must go somewhere, and by using tax payer moneys to pay them off, we are essentially distributing debt. Distribution of wealth still happens in capitalism, that wealth is distributed upwards, much like a ponzi scheme. The intended goal is for that upwards distribution to feed back to the bottom by allowing consolidation of the vast sums of money required for research and development and civil projects, but it is not feeding back. As that money is filling the banks of those on top, they are not spending it on improvements, they are spending it on making more money.

    Before anyone screams I'm a socialist, or before anyone tries to tromp me down from a left or right point of view; Note that I have made no mention of Democrat or Republican until now. This is not a blame for either side, nor any particular individual who may be in charge of that side, as both sides have done this. I am not a socialist as I do not believe in dictators; any individual capable of being a good dictator would likely never rise to that power as those who are more likely to be bad dictators will fight for that power more fiercely in order to take it. What I do believe is that in a system "Of the people, for the people, by the people" I see surprisingly little focus on the people, outside of election time. If the people were really running the government, wouldn't the government give more headway to the people, rather than everything else? As we have become obsessed with money, we have lost overall sight of the important things; health, happiness, and the resources required to obtain them.

    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
    I wonder exactly what Object they are referring to, and why it was deemed so powerful as to deserve to be capitalized. A design to reduce the people under despotism is something like what occurs when the only contracts banks brandy about to the customers all include the line "Reserves the right to change the terms of this contract at any time". I have to ask, given that line, in what sense is this a contract? I thought the whole idea of a contract is that it was composed of agreed upon terms of both parties which cannot be edited by either party without consent of the other.

    The difference this time is that the reduction of the people under despotism did not happen through war or political posturing, but instead through business and the control of the flow of money. Perhaps money is that powerful capitalized Object they spoke of. Hmmm, capitalized object, eerie.

    The worst part of our situation is not in fact the situation itself. The worst part of our situation is that everyone knows about it and doesn't step forward to do anything. Going on in the terms of the above quote, we are not enacting our right, and are not fulfilling our duty as citizens. I don't think we're at the point to need an uprising, and personally that's a little too violent of a path for my liking, but I do think we are at a point where "we the people" need to do something to stop the situation or system which we see as gone awry. Once again, not in respect to the given party which is in power now, but the governmental system in general. A system of representation was necessary back in the days which took 10 days to send word across the country, but now we live in a world where it takes measures of time below seconds to send a message to the furthest outreaches of the entire world. True rule by the people on the scale of a country can now happen through the use of the technologies that are available. Personally, I think we should fulfill that ideal which our country was founded upon.
     
  10. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Barack Obama *exemplifies* many of the qualities that have made the US a great society, overall. Many conservatives just cannot see it behind his skin color and political disagreements with him. They just refuse, and talk about the failure of our country. I think our country has not lived up to its ideals, such as being so scared, we committed torture on people who were never tried in a court of law. And, yet, Obama will destroy us? Please
     
  11. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Nice post.
    In all political systems, there is essentially a distribution of wealth. Using terms like "socialist", "facist" and "nationalist" is just the repackaging for another old & outdated political buzzword most conservatives used to harp on... "more taxes". It does nothing but expose their own fears about their own money and how they live.

    What gets to me is how the truly rich & wealthy have somehow programmed dissenters of the current administration that they are taking money away from them. The rich got the average family who makes $40+/year, the single man or woman who barely makes the high 5 or low 6 figures or even people living in poverty believing that they have more in common with hard working America. Money doesn't equal hard work, because anyone can hit the lottery (or play the stock market which is essentially a virtual, white collar roulette wheel anyhow) and make their millions. People like Donald Trump get the credit for building skyscrapers because his name is on a building and he had the money to get it done. Yet nobody talks about how he didn't lay any of the bricks down to make it happen. Nobody talks about how he spent the hours in the sun mixing plaster, getting his hands dirty and working extended hours everyday to make it happen. Because he didn't do all of that. The common man did that for him, yet they sit back at the end of the day after all that hard work believing that TRUMP is the beacon of society. All the while forgetting how he's gone bankrupt three times, exploiting and wasting the money he made promises on to other would-be investors, in the process of creating his own empire. Greed personified. And dissenters glorify this.

    Perhaps this will bring some more insight what I'm saying to the discussion. And to the certain people that I KNOW will make their negative, flame baited comments, let it be known that the similes in this are pretty strong... and it's NOT what you think it's about.

    YouTube - Def Poetry - Preach - Cotton
     
    #11 B_VinylBoy, May 10, 2009
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  12. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    That about says it all.

    Apologies for the misspelling of "its" in my post above.
     
  13. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,592
    Likes Received:
    880
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    FDR did not face 2 concurrent wars as he took office.
    That allowed him to focus on social programs.

    However, it should be noted that the social programs, although they significantly helped, were not the actions that ultimately ended the depression for good.

    The regulation of commerce and finance that was imposed by FDR largely put an end to boom and bust cycles ( at least until republicans stripped those regulations away over the last 20 years)
    But it was undoubtedly the massive government spending on war materiel that had the biggest and most enduring effect. Not so much the money spent on goods, as the money spent on development of newer and better weapons, not to mention newer and more sophisticated factories.

    WWII left the Untied States as the world's preeminent manufacturer, and high technology leader. Thanks to the destruction across Europe and Asia, The only nation capable of large scale manufacturing of everything from airliners to electronics.

    That was ALL the result of a massive deficit spending program...

    And let's also note that the US car companies were not taken out due to union wages, nor due to the lack of vision of corporate titans... US auto companies in the late 70s were using 25 year old assembly line technology while the Japanese companies were putting up then cutting edge, state of the art factories. Their cars were better because the equipment they made them with was better. Period... nothing to do with their culture versus ours, their engineering versus ours...

    And the Korean and Chinese car makers are doing to the Japanese manufacturers what the Japanese did to GM... only faster.


    The solution is investment in TECHNOLOGY and real industry. In science and research.
    The raw physics done at government funded accelerators and colliders in the 50s and 60s is what GAVE us the computer and electronics revolution of the 80s and 90s.

    Without having been a world leader in quantum physics 30 years prior... we would not have had the corner on the high tech markets that we enjoyed... just as tooling for manufacturing tanks and planes in the 40s paved the way for industrial dominance in the 50s and 60s.


    Thanks to a 30 year long vacation from reason called Reaganomics, and the Republican worldview, we desperately NEED social programs...
    We desperately need to re-distribute SOME of the tax revenue back to the people who paid it out... ( because corporations sure as hell aren't kicking into the kitty...)

    And that will help ease the pain short term...
    But for any lasting results we need Regulation of finance and corporate malfeasance... and we DESPERATELY need the government to start massive investment in helping corporations develop the next necessary technology that will be wanted world wide.

    The near term candidate is anything centering around truly Green technology ( which ethanol is not )

    The slightly longer term prospect is biotechnology.

    SHitcan the religious concerns over clumps of cells and greenlight biotech.

    1 outta 4 people may really want an iPod... but 4 outta 4 want to live longer and healthier lives...
     
    #13 Phil Ayesho, May 10, 2009
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  14. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Holy temper tantrum, Batman.:eek:
     
  15. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    kind of sounds like another poster...eah lover of boy wonder.
     
  16. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
     
  17. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
     
    #17 B_VinylBoy, May 10, 2009
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  18. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Because without them, the so-called big names wouldn't be shit.
    It's not like they could do the job themselves.

    You assume that most of these big name executives who own huge companies pay people enough of a working wage to even pay a bill, take care of a family or even maintain a home. And considering how so many people have to take multiple jobs doing ANY kind of work just to maintain a basic level of life just on necessity, it's safe to say that most of them AREN'T getting what they need. So again, STFU.

    Again, absolute bullshit.
    I'm sure when you were growing up, going to school and decided on career choices you didn't come to the decision that you wanted to "mix plaster for fair pay". People do small, menial jobs because for many those are the only jobs available to them. Even people who go to school, college and grad school have to take these low paying jobs once in a while.

    So, THAT'S it!! I knew you must've done some meth before you respond to me. Guess that's one of those luxurious "perks" of being such a successful financial banker in Manhattan, isn't it Mr. "Sexual Chocolate"? :rolleyes:

    I don't. Just making an example, in which you completely missed as usual. He's still here because people are dumb enough to perceive value in his name based on the level of celebrity he's generated.

    Obviously they don't because he's gone bankrupt three times.
    Most of the "plaster mixers" I know haven't even done it once. :rolleyes:

    No shit... and here I thought it was just a game from Parker Brothers. You so smart! :rolleyes:

    Well, if somehow we can eliminate the majority of these so-called financial wizards who borrow billions of money from investors and go bankrupt, causing a bunch of unclaimed debt and financial ruin to those around them, then it's quite possible that we wouldn't have so many people struggling right now? It's funny how a wealthy, financially stable workaholic like you can't figure THAT out, yet point the finger at Mr. "Plaster Mixer" over here like I don't know something? Look in the mirror next time you want to call someone an idiot. The reflection you see is not one of me.

    Again, you missed the whole point of my post as well as the poem. You're such an ignorant twat, and you dare to point a finger at me? All of your money, your hard work, and you can't even decipher the simplest of simile? LOL!!!

    No, Mr. Dumbshit.
    If anything, a poem like this makes people who are down on their luck aware of their real potential. People like you only view them as pawns in your desperate need to have more money than everyone else... or as "plaster mixers". You never view them with any real value, so you throw them chump change (but call it a working wage), mistaking their hard work ethic and ambition as stupidity not even thinking that they could be using YOU for a stepping stone in their own financial plans as well. Because they're not in your main offices in a three piece suit, holding an MBA or a Degree in anything you deem important, you shit on all of their ideals all the while smiling in their faces, making promises of a better tomorrow that never comes along if they stay at your job mixing plaster. But what happens when enough of these people go on strike? What happens if more people put more faith into their own abilities, go for theirs elsewhere and tell you to take your job and shove it?

    The fact is, as much as you act like you don't need the little man, YOU DO. Because if they decided to look into their full potential and go for theirs, you'd be stuck doing the work that you'd rather pay someone else a few pennies to do. You would make less money and you would have to work harder to make up the difference. The fact that you couldn't even figure this out leads me to believe whether or not you ever had to work hard in your life. Because if you DID, you would understand this struggle and not be so fuckin' negative about it.

    Actually, I thought this poem was quite inspiring. Unlike whatever messages of doom you could ever provide around here. Mr "Everyone is corrupt, we're all screwed unless you see things my way in order to be saved" Flashy. Maybe you should give up financial banking and go into TV Evangelism like that Randy Watson avatar you front? :rolleyes:

    Well, it seems that the entire crowd at attendance that night could feel and understand what he said. As well as the viewers who watched on HBO because he made several re-appearances on that show in the 5 seasons it aired. As well as the many viewers of that video on YouTube. Seems as if the only one looking ignorant right now is you. But hey, you're rich, bitch!! So why the fuck should you care... right? :rolleyes:

    I actually wasn't directing this at you. The last time I posted something on here with a racial overtone, I was bombarded with complaints from a few people and YOU weren't one of them. Guilty conscious, perhaps? :rolleyes:

    Well, let's review your post, shall we?
    You claim that I don't know anything about work because I didn't do the same jobs as you. You claim that you work harder than me because you're a financial investor who works with "big money" and make more than me. You misinterpreted my post, assumed I was talking about you (when I really don't give a fuck if you sink or swim) and instantly starting insulting me. You shit on the ideals of the struggling man, calling them easily replaced "plaster workers". And THEN, you bash verses from a well documented poet all because you made the shallow assumption that he was just bitching about the perils of Capitalism. I ask... WHO'S BEING NEGATIVE? :rolleyes:

    I'd ask that of you, but apparently YOU don't know how.

    But that's the fuckin' point... I didn't post that poem in an attempt to make an issue about Capitalism. YOU'RE TRYING TO TWIST IT INTO ONE. I only posted the link because some of the statements in AllHazzardi's post reminded me of it.

    And don't be jealous because Preach shines better than you, and all he has to do is flex lyrical skills. Deep down, YOU wish you had it that easy. But you don't. Which is why you try to shit on his, or anyone else's ideals that isn't align with yours. You'd think a person in your financial & social status would be MUCH happier than this. Apparently not, I suppose. :rolleyes:

    No... you just like to swing off this gay boy's nuts once in a while. And while I appreciate every single tug, I would appreciate it better if you would keep your hands, your illogical mind and your fucked up social values to yourself. Or at least try to hire a "plaster mixer" to put some in you. :rolleyes:
     
    #18 B_VinylBoy, May 10, 2009
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  19. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Actually, Trump's dad was mob -- he was involved in construction and (I believe) waste hauling. The short-fingered vulgarian was born on third base, so let's not give him too much credit for touching home ...
     
  20. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    WT, I think this is the core question.

    Here are a few thoughts.

    -- Deregulation has allowed financial services firms to radically increase rates and fees.
    -- Firms are now extraordinarily accomplished at creating new financial products that feed a debt-driven consumer society.
    -- Debt instruments have dramatically increased access to financing that has enabled firms to get enormous leverage, but this has made these firms dependent on Wall Street and the profits necessary to service the debt. For example, this is essentially what is happening to newspapers. (Most actually make money from the Internet, so this is really not the cause of the current problems, which started in the mid-90s.)
    -- Multi-national corporations can effectively pay zero tax by operating across international boundaries and taking advantage of tax havens.

    So, companies make more, pay less, and enslave individuals and once-vibrant firms with self-induced debt. Not to get Old Testament, but the money-changers have triumphed.

    And, I work in finance, so take it from one of them (I guess).

     
Draft saved Draft deleted