Taking Our Money, Take out what they want, and give us spittle...
- Thread starter Al Today
- Start date
Buddy
The Living Force
Al Today said:
I hear ya Al. I can almost feel the angry grassroots uprising now. Perhaps this and more to come is inevitable after all the bailouts and stimulus? Greed is never satisfied.
What is most amazing to me is how casually measures such as this can be considered and introduced. Politicians and beaurucrats may be disconnected from reality, but that doesn't mean that people's finances are. Perhaps the whole shebang can backfire as "fixed place employees" become "mobile independent contractors"?
I doubt it, but I dunno.
Even though the whole planet is ponerized, I suspect something like this wouldn't stand a chance in France. Some places are more used to overt oppression than others. All those CCTV cameras acclimate Britain to having everybody's actions be "government approved", this is just another link in that chain for them. The fact that V for Vendetta took place in Britain seems right on the money. Their souls are being sucked from underneath their feet :(Bud said:
Al Today
The Living Force
Yep, the gubement used to cloak their intentions within circular mumbo-jumbo. The populace were confused because TPTB were always so ambiguous. Now they appear so brazen as to display their intention "in our face", so to say.
I'm having a hard time seeing any humor in this... Perhaps there is "time" for more to awaken and "see" what is going on here. It's tough to have no anticipation.
I'm having a hard time seeing any humor in this... Perhaps there is "time" for more to awaken and "see" what is going on here. It's tough to have no anticipation.
Buddy
The Living Force
Good points, SAO.
Well they will certainly push as hard and as far as they can, but there will be a limit and if the conventional view of history is of any value in this context, they will overstep themselves before long and activate:
"People Power"
Ukraine’s reversal of fraudulent elections is not the only example of how a discontented population can change a country’s destiny.(Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power in 41 days [21 November 2004 - 31 December 2004])
Some other examples:
Georgia - Eduard Shevardnadze in 2003
Serbia - Slobodan Milosevic in 2000
Romania - Nicholae Ceausescu in 1989
Philippines - Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and Joseph Estrada in 2001
The "people power" revolution in the Philippines, the coalition that ousted Pinochet in Chile, South Africa's anti-apartheid movement, and civilian movements that felled communist regimes in Poland and Eastern Europe all had common strategic features. They were deliberately nonviolent in terms of some anarchist overthrow, proudly indigenous, unified on the basis of practical goals, and seemed dispersed across the map and class lines of the country - and they co-opted the military.
Successful civilian-based struggle makes a country ungovernable through strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other nonviolent tactics - in addition to mass protests - crumbling a government's pillars of support.
Using the example of Serbia:
The opposition moved to divide the regime from its sources of power thusly:
1.they subordinated lesser objectives to the paramount goal of ousting Mr. Milosevic.
2.the Serbs ignored the temptation of going for broke with premature demonstrations in the capital and instead organized in neighborhoods and towns around the country, giving ordinary people low-risk ways to join in.
3.the Serbian police and military were persuaded that they weren't seen as the enemy - that their support was welcome. To do that, the opposition had to maintain strict nonviolent discipline.
Of course, this is just a conventional view that leaves out other possibly acting forces, both 3D and 4D, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Al Today said:
Well they will certainly push as hard and as far as they can, but there will be a limit and if the conventional view of history is of any value in this context, they will overstep themselves before long and activate:
"People Power"
Ukraine’s reversal of fraudulent elections is not the only example of how a discontented population can change a country’s destiny.(Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power in 41 days [21 November 2004 - 31 December 2004])
Some other examples:
Georgia - Eduard Shevardnadze in 2003
Serbia - Slobodan Milosevic in 2000
Romania - Nicholae Ceausescu in 1989
Philippines - Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and Joseph Estrada in 2001
The "people power" revolution in the Philippines, the coalition that ousted Pinochet in Chile, South Africa's anti-apartheid movement, and civilian movements that felled communist regimes in Poland and Eastern Europe all had common strategic features. They were deliberately nonviolent in terms of some anarchist overthrow, proudly indigenous, unified on the basis of practical goals, and seemed dispersed across the map and class lines of the country - and they co-opted the military.
Successful civilian-based struggle makes a country ungovernable through strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other nonviolent tactics - in addition to mass protests - crumbling a government's pillars of support.
Using the example of Serbia:
The opposition moved to divide the regime from its sources of power thusly:
1.they subordinated lesser objectives to the paramount goal of ousting Mr. Milosevic.
2.the Serbs ignored the temptation of going for broke with premature demonstrations in the capital and instead organized in neighborhoods and towns around the country, giving ordinary people low-risk ways to join in.
3.the Serbian police and military were persuaded that they weren't seen as the enemy - that their support was welcome. To do that, the opposition had to maintain strict nonviolent discipline.
Of course, this is just a conventional view that leaves out other possibly acting forces, both 3D and 4D, but it is interesting nonetheless.
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
Al Today said:I wanna hit something. I will definitely have a smoke or 2, or 3 after this. What can stop this machine?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847
I can just spit...
I hear you Al, This sure seems like the days of Nottingham. But where o where is our Robin Hood?
Mona
Jedi Master
In Canada, I live in Alberta, we are also taxed to death. In British Columbia and Ontario the governments have already introduced the HST, the harmonized sales tax which is guaranteed to rake in more cash for the government mafia. Alberta still does not have it but it is a matter of time when this tax will be also introduced to this, and eventually most provinces. Having grown up in a communist Czechoslovakia I truly wish I could go back to the old communist regime. But it is too late for that as the capitalists have overtaken almost the whole world by now.
Meanwhile...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=2
The Angry Rich
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 19, 2010
Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.
No, I’m not talking about the Tea Partiers. I’m talking about the rich.
These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.
Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.
The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.
Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.
For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It’s one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It’s another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anticolonialist” agenda, that “the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.” When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.
At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.
Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.
These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.
And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.
The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.
You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.
And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.
But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?_r=2
The Angry Rich
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 19, 2010
Anger is sweeping America. True, this white-hot rage is a minority phenomenon, not something that characterizes most of our fellow citizens. But the angry minority is angry indeed, consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away. And they’re out for revenge.
No, I’m not talking about the Tea Partiers. I’m talking about the rich.
These are terrible times for many people in this country. Poverty, especially acute poverty, has soared in the economic slump; millions of people have lost their homes. Young people can’t find jobs; laid-off 50-somethings fear that they’ll never work again.
Yet if you want to find real political rage — the kind of rage that makes people compare President Obama to Hitler, or accuse him of treason — you won’t find it among these suffering Americans. You’ll find it instead among the very privileged, people who don’t have to worry about losing their jobs, their homes, or their health insurance, but who are outraged, outraged, at the thought of paying modestly higher taxes.
The rage of the rich has been building ever since Mr. Obama took office. At first, however, it was largely confined to Wall Street. Thus when New York magazine published an article titled “The Wail Of the 1%,” it was talking about financial wheeler-dealers whose firms had been bailed out with taxpayer funds, but were furious at suggestions that the price of these bailouts should include temporary limits on bonuses. When the billionaire Stephen Schwarzman compared an Obama proposal to the Nazi invasion of Poland, the proposal in question would have closed a tax loophole that specifically benefits fund managers like him.
Now, however, as decision time looms for the fate of the Bush tax cuts — will top tax rates go back to Clinton-era levels? — the rage of the rich has broadened, and also in some ways changed its character.
For one thing, craziness has gone mainstream. It’s one thing when a billionaire rants at a dinner event. It’s another when Forbes magazine runs a cover story alleging that the president of the United States is deliberately trying to bring America down as part of his Kenyan, “anticolonialist” agenda, that “the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s.” When it comes to defending the interests of the rich, it seems, the normal rules of civilized (and rational) discourse no longer apply.
At the same time, self-pity among the privileged has become acceptable, even fashionable.
Tax-cut advocates used to pretend that they were mainly concerned about helping typical American families. Even tax breaks for the rich were justified in terms of trickle-down economics, the claim that lower taxes at the top would make the economy stronger for everyone.
These days, however, tax-cutters are hardly even trying to make the trickle-down case. Yes, Republicans are pushing the line that raising taxes at the top would hurt small businesses, but their hearts don’t really seem in it. Instead, it has become common to hear vehement denials that people making $400,000 or $500,000 a year are rich. I mean, look at the expenses of people in that income class — the property taxes they have to pay on their expensive houses, the cost of sending their kids to elite private schools, and so on. Why, they can barely make ends meet.
And among the undeniably rich, a belligerent sense of entitlement has taken hold: it’s their money, and they have the right to keep it. “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” said Oliver Wendell Holmes — but that was a long time ago.
The spectacle of high-income Americans, the world’s luckiest people, wallowing in self-pity and self-righteousness would be funny, except for one thing: they may well get their way. Never mind the $700 billion price tag for extending the high-end tax breaks: virtually all Republicans and some Democrats are rushing to the aid of the oppressed affluent.
You see, the rich are different from you and me: they have more influence. It’s partly a matter of campaign contributions, but it’s also a matter of social pressure, since politicians spend a lot of time hanging out with the wealthy. So when the rich face the prospect of paying an extra 3 or 4 percent of their income in taxes, politicians feel their pain — feel it much more acutely, it’s clear, than they feel the pain of families who are losing their jobs, their houses, and their hopes.
And when the tax fight is over, one way or another, you can be sure that the people currently defending the incomes of the elite will go back to demanding cuts in Social Security and aid to the unemployed. America must make hard choices, they’ll say; we all have to be willing to make sacrifices.
But when they say “we,” they mean “you.” Sacrifice is for the little people.
Al Today said:I wanna hit something. I will definitely have a smoke or 2, or 3 after this. What can stop this machine?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847
I can just spit...
I totally agree - it makes you want to spit, and more!!!
SAO said:
Is this just the next step that takes us closer to the 'cashless' (in more ways than one :)) society and employed people as (wage) work-slaves for the rich? Maintained for their 'pleasure' and service.
knowledge_of_self
The Living Force
Mona said:
From Wikipedia: [emphasis mine]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_Sales_Tax
I live in BC, and before the HST went into effect, the government spewed so much about how HST is going to "help lower-income groups" etc...
Of course a lie, since now the cost of food, clothes and many other things are higher and the tax is pretty much doubled on those items.
So how does this help the poor who can't afford food or clothes and other things. It's SO ridiculous
!
Buddy
The Living Force
Laura said:
Well how can suffering Americans feel rage when they are too busy laughing at the antics of the "rich-who-are-in-tax-pain"? :)
Seriously though, I wonder if this story is of the kind that would relate to the C's comments concerning the 'elites' or 'paths' fighting amongst themselves? (can't find the session, but I'm thinking it does exist).
When the poor have nothing left, I suppose the pathocrats will have to feed off each other.
Al Today
The Living Force
Okay... I'm probably going off into la-la land, but, I just can't stop thinking about all the mass anxiety building with reflection on Earth changes. Volcanoes, storms, cracks in the Gulf bed that may release extinction level methane death. Who knows? Kinda hard to not worry. As mankind's stress builds, so does the Earth's stress. Seems to me anyway... How long can, for lack of terms, anxiety build until KaBoom.!.!.! The kettle of boiling water overflows? I can get therapy, someone to talk with... BUT... What about Mother Earth? Who's gonna help Her out?
Good point. Plus, there's this:Bud said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
George Carlin's thoughts on saving the planet ;)
