MrSmith1's picture

    My Rant About The Elephant / Gorilla In The Room ...

    Reading Destor23's excellent blog, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry ... or go howl at the moon.

    So I guess I'll do a bit of all three.

    It seems to me, these mental gymnastics that our politicians and commentators go through lately are mainly because neither side wants to look directly at the unvarnished truth; which is that the people who have no interest in a united society, have succeeded in turning us into a nation of individuals who are interested only in our own self-enrichment and away from being a united state in which we all contribute for a common good.  A nation where we take care of each other and help those in need. 

    They have convinced a majority of people, (or lulled enough people to sleep, or disgruntled enough people so that they are fed up with government all together and stay at home on voting day because their vote "doesn't matter"...), so that a majority of voters now believe it is in their best interest to think only of themselves rather than pooling their efforts to create a just society for all, united for the common good of the country. 

    These 'villains' have made the fight for wealth into the definition of 'winning', and have re-defined people with less of a desire to claw their way to the top in order to achieve wealth, into losers and slackers, rather than simply acknowledge that some people have a different vision of what Life and the Pursuit of Happiness could and should be.

    We have allowed the conflation of money and power to turn us into 308 million individuals, living in private bunkers, whose mantras are, "I've got mine, screw the rest of you."  That is why America will no longer build great things or make great strides.  We have become, as Richard Day expressed in a recent blog, petty individuals, with no desire to contribute to anyone's benefit other than our own.

    And the cause of this is staring us right in the face, and yet, no-one will step up and point the finger in 'polite circles.'  No-one makes the painful connection that America's traitors, the destroyers of our democracy, are the ones who have spent the past 30+ years, ensuring our eventual demise by the under-taxation of wealthy Americans and corporations, which has left our society impoverished and our nation unable to provide a real safety net for those truly in need or even provide for our own common good, like fixing our infrastructure. 

    Instead of pointing the fingers of accusation and making these people pariahs, we allow these bastards to continue to operate their scheme, which now manifests itself as the Paul Ryan budget, their final assault on what used to be the middle class.  They set the trap and baited it with tax cuts, which seemed reasonable at the time, but which have snowballed in significance and have become the reason why we are now in such a horrible financial mess.  We trusted them, and they played us, and now they want us to turn the government back to them so they can 'fix' the very thing they broke.

    We continue this insane march towards their sick Ayn Rand vision of a world where if you can't compete the way they define it, you deserve to be enslaved by the "elites", and "winning" means you are great at making pots of money for yourself ... and keeping it.   Pity those 'stupid artistic' people whose pursuit of happiness doesn't include the desire to make large pots of money.  Sure, Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth, but that will be long after the rich have sucked the earth completely dry and sold off all the valuable parts, leaving the meek with a life-less rock of a planet on which they'll be taxed at the pre-assessed value ... suckers

    The gutting of our society over such a long period of time in order to fund the further enrichment of the already over-entitled elites, is a shame so despicable and embarrassing that both sides don't have the stomach to face it head-on.  So to avoid looking at it, both sides consider 'changes' in medicare and social security, because we've 'got to do something about the... (get scared) deficit!  Medicare and Social Security is NOT the problem.  The problem is we have not been funding the government to meet its financial obligations.  If you have 5 dollars and have agreed to bring your secretary a ham sandwich for lunch that costs 3 dollars, you don't hand four dollars to a guy on the street and then fire the secretary for wanting the ham sandwich that you promised her... but I digress. 

    Republicans, of course, won't say anything about this, because they actually support all the money flowing to the top, so all they want to do is divert our attention from the truth. The Democrats won't do much more than make lame protestations,  because if they really took on this topic fully, and called the Republicans traitors for destroying America, then people would start asking, "Where the Hell were you when all this was happening?" "How complicit were you that you allowed things to get to this point?" I'll tell you where they were, they were too cowed by Republicans to stand up and say "We're cutting taxes too much!" or bother to explain WHY the reason both local and federal governments are in trouble is not primarily because of over-spending, it's because tax cutting fever cut off the revenue stream needed to meet even our reasonable financial obligations. 

    Instead that money went, not to fill potholes or pay agreed-upon pensions to city workers, it went into a rich person's bank account and stayed there. 

    Democrats are scared to say too much that contradicts the Republican narrative nowadays, because they don't want to offend their own rich donors, besides, they know if they do say something, they'll be targeted and 'taken out' by the Right-Wing Scream Machine and end up being destroyed politically by a manipulated, gerry-mandered electorate that includes very few, if any, 'safe' Democratic' districts. 

    So now everyone, politicians and commentators alike, bend themselves into pretzels to find any OTHER explanation to build into a rationalization of why we are where we are ... when the real explanation is the devastation the over-tax-cutting bastards have done to us for 30+ years. 

    You can't ignore 30 years of under-taxation ... unless you're really trying.  All the Chicken Littles that are screaming about the deficit never seem to connect the dots and assign blame where the blame should actually be laid; at the feet of bastards like Grover Norquist. 

    The bastards' dream of destroying FDR's legacy is nearly complete. And we let it happen because we didn't have the stomach to fight the tiny encroachments as they slowly but surely chipped away at what was so beneficial to the middle class for so long a time.

    We all know who the villains actually are, and have been. They're the people who do the bidding for the people who don't want to pay their fair share and who have rigged the system to make sure they never do, even if it means destroying us in the process. 

    And that's my slightly revised and expanded upon rant for today.

    P.S.  Thanks to Ramona and Destor23 for recommending I re-publish this comment as a blog.

     

    Comments

    So, one of the things that interests me most about this is that... I'm somewhat guilty.  I'm a huge adherent of the cult of the individual.  I think it's because I'm a hopeful artist.  We all want to have our own way and to be able to make our lives based on our own ideas and what we want to say.  Everybody wants to be celebrated.

    But reality does not offer that to every individual.  Not even to many of them, much less most.  The vast majority of us have to spend out time, working for money, in pursuit of somebody else's ambition, which may or may not represent a societal need.  Most of us will not be celebrated for that.  It's an expectation.  And, to far too many people, it's not even anything to complain about -- at least you have a job.

    In the U.S., we have a $15 trillion economy where the rewards go disproportionately to the very few.  We tell ourselves that this is okay because they've earned it and we tend to forget the role of luck in that whole matter, though every time anybody looks at the issue, whether it's Malcolm Gladwell or Michael Lewis the insight is always that luck plays a much bigger role than we'd like to believe.

    And, of course, people like me contribute to the ignorance of luck because we basically like the idea of individuals being celebrated for their merits.  We want to believe that people are worthy of that, even though we know that, as Leonard Cohen once observed, "The dice are loaded."

    The truth is that we need each other.  An economy that will produce $15 trillion this year and between 1-3 percent more, per year, on average, ad infinitum, can certainly pay for the retirement and medical care of the individuals who produce that wealth.  But, it means not sending all of that money straight to the top and then down to their heirs.

    We have a distribution problem, not a wealth problem.  We have a problem with rewarding people for their effort.  There's an idea in my head, lifted from Woody Allen's underrated movie called "Celebrity."  There's a throwaway line at a party, about a famous novelist who is writing a book based on the premise that everybody in the world is a celebrity.  "Every life is celebrated," is the line.

    Well, we need some of that.  I'm okay with having a famous baseball slugger or a famous reality TV star, but don't we also need a famous second grade teacher?  And, if we can't have that, how about a decent pension for the teacher?  If we can't all be celebrated, maybe we can all be honored?  Maybe we can band together and provide for each other?

    Except that it's not about each other, is it?  It's about the very wealthy, who don't need the rest of us for their retirements or for their care when they get sick, not wanting to contribute to the common pool.

    In essence, the rich believe their own press... which is that they're rich because they're brilliant and worthy.  It's actually economic Calvinism.  Which is an idea I hope to explore further...


    Economic Calvinism.

    Fantastic!


    the rich believe their own press... which is that they're rich because they're brilliant and worthy.  It's actually economic Calvinism.  Which is an idea I hope to explore further...

    In my experience, it's not so much that but that a lot of financially successful people believe in some variant of "trickle down," they truly fear that higher taxes on the top income earners and on the top capital gains earners will make the economy tighten up more, freeze more, slow down more or something similar. It's not so much about deserving what happened to them, but more about a fear that it won't happen anymore at all. This is a main reason for the big cash to Republicans.

    A lot of lower level enterpreneurs, not ultra wealthy, also think this way, as do (again, in my personal experience, not a scientific survey! just my anecdotals! no proof! indecision) immigrants in business for themselves, even ones below 6-figure incomes. Repeating to be clear: they fear what higher taxes on higher incomes and higher profits will do to the economy.

    (As do a lot of upper income professionals--remember a year or two back the story about the doctor with a doctor wife in Chicago who said they spend most of their annual $350K on paying the help and other services and if the government takes more of it, the people that they and others like them employ will get laid off? And that if he knew the government would spend it wisely, to really help people, he wouldn't begrudge downsizing, having to do more chores himself, etc., but he didn't think the government would spend it wisely?)


    Funny, I think the Woody Allen line is actually a variation of an old Lenny Bruce line, which was an observation about the disparity between what Sophie Tucker was being paid and the salary of Las Vegas teachers ...

    I think individualism about one's art or about one's personal pursuits is different from individualism about society and the country we live in, but unfortunately the line between the two has been erased or become blurred and people now tend to think that being true to oneself  is the same thing as looking out only for themselves; but being selfish and self-absorbed are not the same things as being a rugged individualist.  In my experience, it is, in fact, the greater, more relevant artists that understand the connection between themselves and the society in which they live.

    I did watch that Michael Lewis commencement speech and passed it on.  I agree with his premise about luck and the reluctance of the successful to acknowledge its role in what they've accomplished.  Human nature, I suppose, and there is some part of this in which the rich have forgotten the role of luck in their lives and have begun to believe their own press releases about their entitlement, but it isn't ultimately about that.

    I think it's more that we as a society no longer believe that we have an obligation to help each other. We no longer think that there is a value to building a world together and helping out the other guy. (I suppose in addition to killing off FDR's legacy, you could add that they've killed off Frank Capra's too.) 

    For political expediency, our own citizens have been demonized and blamed for our problems.  Instead of blaming the idiots who negotiated the contracts with the unions, we blame the unions for wanting and taking too much.  Instead of looking at our financial obligations and making sure we set aside enough money to cover our obligations, like the contracts that were signed with the unions,  we destroy unions and steal from their pension funds and then claim the unions are at fault for our financial problems and why we're not being able to pay their pensions.  Why aren't we blaming the government officials that negotiated the contracts? The unions, to me, are simply doing their job, which is to be the best advocate they can be for their members.  Blaming the unions is kind of like punishing the defense lawyer for getting his client off.  It's a head-spinning bit of sleight of hand, to avoid the admittance that in the name of giving more money to the wealthy, we have gutted our society and destroyed any avenue to success for people who are not already rich.

     


    Everybody wants to be celebrated.

    No they don't but apparently you do.  I am genuinely curious as to why because I do not understand it.  The possibility makes me cringe.  I do not even want to be the center of attention at my own funeral.

    What I would have liked is more autonomy and more leisure to pursue my own interests than our fame and fortune obsessed culture permitted me until I grew too old to make the most of them.


    I don't want to put words into Destor's mouth but I think what he meant by that is that everyone wants their own worth to be recognized.  It's what keeps us moving forward. He wasn't talking about celebrity for celebrity's sake:

    I'm okay with having a famous baseball slugger or a famous reality TV star, but don't we also need a famous second grade teacher?  And, if we can't have that, how about a decent pension for the teacher?  If we can't all be celebrated, maybe we can all be honored?  Maybe we can band together and provide for each other?


    Thanks, Ramona.  Yeah, that's what I meant.  Though, I also wouldn't mind fame.  I am a writer, after all, and such a scenario would amplify my voice.


    Okay, next question. 

    Why do you want your voice amplified?  

    What do you want to say?

     


    Well, Emma... not to bad mouth my job or anything, but I'd rather be writing plays and fiction and essays for The New Yorker. I don't have it so bad, but this ain't the life I dreamed of.  I'd definitely trade my professional fortunes for Lena Dunham's.


    Not really up on pop culture these days.  Had to look up Lena Dunham.  From what I could glean, her success is likely the result of the birth lottery than anything else.  Not to say she has no talent but what she has accomplished at 26 requires money and connections even more than talent.


    Yeah.  I think she is talented and hard working.  But, a lot of people are those things.


    "not to bad mouth my job or anything, but I'd rather be writing plays and fiction and essays for The New Yorker."

    Yeah, me too.  


     

    Letters of Note - Kurt Vonnegut:

    October 28, 1949

    Dear Pop: 

    I sold my first story to Collier's. Received my check ($750 minus a 10% agent's commission) yesterday noon. It now appears that two more of my works have a good chance of being sold in the near future. I think I'm on my way.

    I've deposited my first check in a savings account and, as and if I sell more, will continue to do so until I have the equivalent of one year's pay at GE. Four more stories will do it nicely, with cash to spare (something we never had before). I will then quit this goddamn nightmare job, and never take another one so long as I live, so help me God. I'm happier than I've been in a good many years.

    Love. K.


    LOL!   Thanks for that Emma.


    Thanks.  Between this and destor's reply to you, I think I understand better.

    To me what both of you describe is that old esteem need from Maslow's pyramid.  I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on his part because it has led away us from the simple need to belong and measure up and toward status-seeking valuations with their accompanying desire to rise above others.

    Belonging, measuring up.  These I understand.

    Celebrated and honored above others, not so much.

     


    I think, in this instance, it might help to substitute the word "celebrated". with either, 'appreciated' or 'valued' or 'recognized.'  

    We all crave recognition and acknowledgement for what we do and who we are.


    I prefer the word 'belonging'.  See above.


    Donal had posted this Princeton commencement speech "Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie" by Michael Lewis a little while ago in the news section.

    My case illustrates how success is always rationalized. People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck — especially successful people. As they age, and succeed, people feel their success was somehow inevitable. They don't want to acknowledge the role played by accident in their lives. There is a reason for this: the world does not want to acknowledge it either.

    The "Moneyball" story has practical implications. If you use better data, you can find better values; there are always market inefficiencies to exploit, and so on. But it has a broader and less practical message: don't be deceived by life's outcomes. Life's outcomes, while not entirely random, have a huge amount of luck baked into them. Above all, recognize that if you have had success, you have also had luck — and with  luck comes obligation. You owe a debt, and not just to your Gods. You owe a debt to the unlucky. [emphasis mine]


    We know and understand the Republican side.  They're Republicans.  This is what they do.  In extremes these days, but the message is the same:  Reward the rich, relegate everyone else to servants of the rich. 

    It's the Democratic leadership that needs some major head-bashing.  It's the callous disregard for the devastating effects their collusion and neglect have caused.  It's their concerted effort to conveniently forget the legacy of FDR's New Deal, Johnson's war on poverty, the role of unions in building a vibrant middle class--the things that make Democrats Democrats.

    But you're right that much of their fear has it's roots in the obscene amounts of cash candidates need these days to get anywhere.  They think they can't afford to alienate their major donors--the very people they're supposed to be protecting us from. 

    They want so badly to hold onto their jobs, they'll close their eyes to the obvious--that they're selling their constituents out in the process.  Their job is to follow a long-standing Democratic platform of fairness and equality  but if they follow it, they'll lose.  Or so they think.

    If we want to keep the Republicans at bay,  we have to get the wayward Democratic leaders on our side.  What a weird thought, that, coming from a Democrat, but I've been with the Democratic Party for so long I think I've earned the right to give 'em hell without killing the entire party in the process.   They're not the party, we are.  We elected them to represent us and if they're doing a piss-poor job they're going to lose, anyway. 


    The conundrum of course, is that we, Democrats are also scared of Republicans being elected, so even though our candidates do a piss-poor job, we feel the alternative is so much worse, we stay at home or vote for third parties at our own peril.   I forget how many months ago it was that I wrote that it was pathetic if Obama's team relied on the "Yeah, but the other guy would be even worse" strategy to get re-elected, but it appears that is what this election is going to turn out to be.   How do we break out of this bad dream without inflicting more suffering on ourselves?  I am going to vote for him, even though I'm not totally happy with everything he's done, but I want my voting for Obama to be more than just that I think the other side is not a viable option, and will in fact, destroy us at a faster pace. 


    And, of course, the big Democratic donors that Ramona is talking about have a very different vision for the party.  They believe in all of this trickle down stuff, they're just not social conservatives.  A lot of them would actually fit in well with Romney, which might explain their lack of alarm about the prospects of Obama losing in 2012.


    To which, I can only smack my forehead and scream, "D'OH!"


    Many people worry about how far one can tax economic growth and still have it.

    There are arguments for stimulus and arguments for reducing deficits but both types of analysis are bounded by a recognition of a global process that determines what the outcome will be. In other words, economy as talked about by economists is a market where fortunes are distributed through the international system of trade upon which all our money is based upon.

    With that global set of conditions in mind, rejecting the Norquist algorithm is either the beginning of a new understanding of money and exchange or the dissolution of the system itself.

     


     

    Does our economy need a "complete re-set" as in The Adjustment Bureau?

    Removing Mr. Norquist from the Chairman's Plan, would make economic recovery a lot easier, in my opinion.


    It would certainly benefit the world if Mr. Norquist no longer influenced public policy. He is an apostle preaching Reagan's socialism that believes the free market can replace many institutions established under the authority of government. But rejecting the fallacies that make that idea so prevalent doesn't necessarily dismantle the underlying assumption that Capitalism is a self correcting and self sustaining system.

    In terms of the Five Stages of Grief, Norquist is still at the first stage: "I feel fine, what the hell is wrong with you."


    Latest Comments