"Billionaires Up, America Down" by Holly Sklar

[hfojvt]

This Op-Ed was in my local paper. Kudos to them, and to the author.

"When it comes to producing billionaires, America is doing great.

Until 2005, multimillionaires could still make the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. In 2006, the Forbes 400 went billionaires only."

(snip)

"The 25th anniversary of the Forbes 400 isn't party time for America.

We have a record 482 billionaires -- and record foreclosures.

We have a record 482 billionaires -- and a record 47 million people without any health insurance.

Since 2000, we have added 184 billionaires -- and 5 million more people living below the poverty line.

The official poverty threshold for one person was a ridiculously low $10,294 in 2006. That won't get you two pounds of caviar ($9,800) and 25 cigars ($730) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The $20,614 family-of-four poverty threshold is lower than the cost of three months of home flower arrangements ($24,525). "

(snip)

"It's time for Congress to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy and close the loophole letting billionaire hedge fund speculators pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries.

Inequality has roared back to 1920s levels. It was bad for our nation then. It's bad for our nation now."

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-11/09sklar.cfm

[Selatius]

1. They won't let another FDR into office again.

The prevailing attitude in the 1920s in terms of economic policy was that the government should adopt a laissez-faire approach to regulating the economy. When the Great Depression came about, it became plain that the approach wasn't working, that some amount of regulation of capitalism was needed. By capitalism, I mean private ownership of capital. If there were no FDR to save capitalism from itself, it's a fair chance that the capitalist system would've collapsed completely in violent fashion.

We probably would've seen the rise of communism on American soil or even Hitler-like corporatism where the economy is run by a government in collusion with industrialists and bankers, but on that last point, one could argue we're already a managed economy under the diktat of industrialists and bankers. In the 1930s, people were desperate for relief, and for many, communism or fascism looked like the answer.

Today, people know about the lessons of the Great Depression, certainly the industrialists. They want to increase their power, but at the same time, they would be foolhardy to simply yank out the New Deal programs like Social Security and labor protections. They'll attempt to throw enough crumbs at the masses to prevent them from reaching critical mass and exploding but not enough to truly help them either. If you can achieve that, you stand a fair chance of maintaining your regime indefinitely.

[hfojvt]

3. Plus they have spent 70+ years convincing people that socialism sucks

Back in 1920 Debs could draw 16% of the votes in some states and almost 6% nationwide. But even many Republicans like Roosevelt, Taft, and LaFollette were progressives. That was before Stalin ruined the name of socialism in the eyes of most Americans.

[mac2]

2. Good article

I agree we don't have representatives in DC any more we have "royals" who think they "deserve to live like kings and queens" on our backs. That is not what democracy is about.

Prosperity by the country's workers has resulted in the few taking it for themselves. Now even the few will see their life style in danger. Our infrastructure falling apart, crime on the rise, and their children's future very unsure. When we had a large middle class we were a peaceful and fairly safe country. That is gone with extremes on either end of the social classes. Much like Charles Dickens England when you think about it.

The few keep passing "security" laws to protect themselves from the "rabble". They fear us not "over there". No laws can stop society from breaking down and becoming chaos. People will do what it takes to feed their families, survive, etc. History will repeat itself. Guess many of the elite aren't great at common sense economics.

[hfojvt]

4. crime does seem to be on the rise since 2000

but mostly it seems to be young thugs trying to get drug money, rather than anyone feeding their family. Unfortunately, it was the American voter who voted for those tax cuts more than it was the idea of the Representatives. After proposition 13 and Reagan's landslide in 1980, most people are afraid to vote against, or campaign against, tax cuts, even as most of the benefits of those tax cuts goto the wealthy.

[Richard Steele]

5. K&R