I think we’re more of a plutocracy or oligarchy since the ridiculous don’t really rule so much as they just eat up attention (at least in Paul Ryan’s case), but I still like this idea, from Paul Krugman.
The whining from the banksters about Obama not kissing their asses is truly ridiculous. I do think it’s mostly from higher ups, I’ve never heard any friends in finance mention this, and they do spend a lot of time complaining about the government (mostly that they don’t think regulation is done properly in practice).
The Bobs
I’d bet anything that Jamie Dimon is one of the whiners.
General Stuck
This is all so goddamn confusing. Didn’t Kos his self arrive here yesterday to proclaim Obama is kissing the banksters asses and will become a one term presnit? Haven’t our resident firebaggers been saying the same thing? And now, well, not quite true, and Obama didn’t actually meet with them. And they are actually all butthurt because he isn’t treating them so hot.
Tell me again someone, what good is the netroots?
MikeJ
Weren’t the same bankers proud of being assholes back when they were making more money?
cat48
At least 2 of them should be treated badly….the 2 who just couldn’t make it to the WH meeting last year b/c it was foggy. Since the president has a healthy ego himself, I can’t see him “groveling at their feet” as Kos & FDL seem to think he does.
Gordon, The Big Express Engine
O/T – but anyone catch Tucker Carlson’s comments about Michael Vick?
DougJ
@Gordon, The Big Express Engine:
Yeah, what a nut.
Violet
@General Stuck:
Here? He did? Guess I missed that.
Awesome thread title.
joe from Lowell
They banksters of the 30s didn’t appreciate Roosevelt for saving their asses, either.
Fuck ’em. FDR and Obama didn’t save capitalism out of a deep-seated concern for spoiled assholes.
Scott P.
I missed this. Which thread?
kdaug
Three words: “Eisenhower Tax Rates”.
Cat Lady
Can we stone the banksters while they’re goin’ home? kthx.
General Stuck
@Scott P.:
This one
General Stuck
Opps, screwed that one up = deleted
Jack
Personally, I think the term “plutarchy” fits best our current regime. (Read the entire first sentence to get the full meaning, note it encompasses plutocracy and oligarchy)
licensed to kill time
@Cat Lady: Maybe then they wouldn’t feel so all alone.
Nellcote
DougJ
Yer title looks like a mash up of “stoned me to my soul” and “G-L-O-R-I-A”.
PS
@kdaug: Agreed!
DougJ
@Nellcote:
And it stoned me just like Jelly Roll.
SGEW
What’s wrong with “kleptocracy”?
Steeplejack
@DougJ:
Damn it. Now I’m wondering where my copy of Moondance is. Haven’t listened to that one in a long time.
freelancer
Awww Fuck! HERE go again.
Don’t want to disrupt the comity of the Atlantic blog.
Taibbi from Griftopia:
Read “serious” for “rich”.
Nellcote
@DougJ:
ouch! that was stretchy!
Villago Delenda Est
@SGEW:
Traditionally, a “kleptocracy” was used to describe third world hellholes usually run by strongmen with high melanin counts. Zaire being a pretty good example of same.
So we can’t use that term for this country.
However, the parasite overclass is working hard on transforming this country into a third world hellhole. Give them a little more time.
The Dangerman
Tax them until they cry (literally; I want real tears, not any fake saline shit).
Villago Delenda Est
@The Dangerman:
Um, they’ll cry if you increase their taxes by 50 cents.
I’m afraid we’ll need to go well beyond crying to start making amends.
Mnemosyne
@SGEW:
I don’t think “kleptocracy” encompasses the batshit insanity of believing that Ayn Rand was a serious economist. Or an economist of any kind, really.
MattR
@Gordon, The Big Express Engine: The closing paragraph from the AP report perfectly nails Carlson’s real issue.
Michael D.
O/T – but if anyone is looking for Judith Miller, she’s over at NewsMax.
A perfect match, to be sure.
DougJ
@Nellcote:
They sort of rhyme, don’t they?
Barb (formerly Gex)
Oh, regulation is done improperly. Maybe because one side of the political spectrum has made regulation a dirty word. We can only remove regulations these days. No one wants to add some. People in finance are the ones who prevent proper regulation. That’s how they stick their hand in the national till. I’d have trouble being friends with people like that. You’re a better person than I.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
poor tucker, he’s such a failure.
even vasts amounts of wingnut welfare can’t turn a sow’s ear into a slick purse.
SGEW
@Villago Delenda Est; @Mnemosyne:
I just meant the very literal “rule by thieves.”
Brachiator
@MattR:
You know, if only the banksters had paid for their crimes, they might have earned a second chance to contribute to society again.
@DougJ: Keeping up with the song title wordplay,
What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and oligarchy!?
Violet
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
He really is. He was even voted off first on Dancing with the Stars. He’s a pathetic failure.
@General Stuck:
Thanks. I guess I was busy when Kos came to visit. Looks like it was an entertaining thread. In an annoying way.
Villago Delenda Est
@SGEW:
Yeah, I know, but our Galtian overlords can’t be thieves. They just can’t. To state that baldly is to…well, state it baldly and it might hurt their fee fees.
Southern Beale
Yes, it is. And while I know this will get me labeled an Obama hater from some folks here (and I’m not, just a thoughtful critic. I do give credit where it’s due), I found this post from Ed at Gin And Tacos particularly interesting.
I’ll just cut to the chase and quote the final graf:
The problem we have is that no one in power is standing up to the oligarchs and plutocrats. That means the banksters, the insurance titans, the oil barons, the masters of corporate hegemony. The few who do are quickly written off as fringe wackos.
And maybe what we on the left need to be doing is ask how, devoid a voice in Washington, we take these folks on. What’s the best way to go about it?
DougJ
@Barb (formerly Gex):
No, in that the people who carry out the regulation aren’t paid enough so they do a crappy job and the regulations don’t get enforced.
Delia
@Mnemosyne:
Or a good writer for that matter.
MattR
Sorry for more off-topicness but this quote from Christine O’Donnell’s campaign spokesman, responding to reports that she is under federal investigation for using campaign funds for personal reasons, is just too good not to share. What liberal boogeymen is he missing?
ChrisS
@General Stuck:
“And they are actually all butthurt because he isn’t treating them so hot.”
Yeah, because they have everything they want and they can just shut up and go home and cry themselves to sleep on their giant piles of money.
Or they’re greedy and never stop. Just like how all those republicans needed more time to consider the healthcare reform bill and needed to be treated better. The democrats caved and gave them some facetime. And then they went and voted against it anyway while promising that Obama was going to kill grandma.
You people are just too fucking easy to please. Banksters know better.
General Stuck
@Southern Beale:
Get corporate/private money out of politics. It is the only way, imho, and on that front, things do not look bright, ie Citizens United. I see nothing short of some serious pain and instability in this country, until we as a people start paying attention to our democracy. And now the SCOTUS has left but one door open to change our fate and return the country to the people. And that is a Constitutional Amendment to rid private cash from campaigns and politics of governing, in general and in toto. There is no light in that tunnel at present.
Walker
@kdaug:
Cactus from Angry Bear has a post a few days ago in which he uses a lot of data to argue that 65% is the optimal (as in revenue producing) top marginal for income taxes. I cannot comment on the validity of his methodology, but it is interesting nonetheless.
Mnemosyne
@Southern Beale:
But having one man “find his balls” and stand up to them will totally work this time?
Sorry, but the One Man theory of politics drives me up the fucking wall. Obama fought for (literally) years to get the tax cuts extended only for the middle class, and he was defeated. But apparently it was his own fault for losing, because he didn’t “find his balls” and magically win against the institutions stacked against him, including the House of Representatives and the US Senate.
Gah.
General Stuck
@ChrisS:
Stop bringing lies to a fact fight.
stuckinred
Billy Taylor, a pianist and composer who was also an eloquent spokesman and advocate for jazz as well as a familiar presence for many years on television and radio, died on Tuesday in Manhattan.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
Maybe it’s just because obama so cool.
Various groups (especially lefty blogs/ white house beat writers) complain that they don’t get enough attention or stroking from obama.
It’s very high schoolish. Like teens angry that their girlfriend/boyfriend doesn’t spend enough time with them.
Brachiator
@Villago Delenda Est:
Nope. There’s actually a list. There’s a wide world of crooks of all colors, including people like former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko ($114 million – $200 million).
I even like how the newest level of crooks are described:
Money money money mon-ey.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
Speaking of Obama being cool, did anyone see him on the “Kennedy Center Honors” last night? He was rock’n and roll’n. And Alma Powell has the biggest crush on him.
what a constrast with chimpy. Chimpy always would squirm in his seat and constantly smirk disapprovingly during the events, making sure everyone knew how much he hated being there.
ChrisS
@General Stuck:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/07/nation/na-health-gop7
The president is trying to build the broadest coalition possible for his approach to reforming the healthcare system,” said Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman. “We often find a very different, less partisan approach outside the hot house of the Beltway.”
Eliciting expressions of GOP support was also part of an aggressive and carefully orchestrated White House campaign to accelerate its push for congressional support as major decision points draw nearer.
Now, with all that outreach and bi-partisan ship, how many
republicans in the house voted for the bill?
A) 20
B) 147
C) 58
D) 1
“Tonight, in a historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people,” President Obama said after the vote.
The bill nearly failed when a deal with conservative Dems collapsed and Pelosi was forced to let them bring up an amendment to restrict abortion coverage.
The move enraged liberals, but most agreed to stay onboard and Obama traveled to the House Saturday to seal the deal with a personal plea.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/11/07/2009-11-07_health_care_reform_bill_nears_vote_in_house_amendment_restricts_abortion_coverag.html#ixzz19XZBSFgd
Villago Delenda Est
@Brachiator:
Gosh, I hope they didn’t forget Indonesia under the Suharto clan. Ah, good. They did not.
My close personal friend Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire made the list! Huzzah!
The hilarity is amplified in that the George W. Bush administration has a statement about “kleptocracies” on that wiki page. This is like the Corelones bitching about “organized crime”.
Delia
Yeah, all of this is true. My first impulse was to mumble something about waiting for the final rising of the Proletariat against Capital, but that’s never worked out too well in the past.
joe from Lowell
@Southern Beale:
Which makes the passage of Dodd-Frank that much more impressive.
And no, being able to imagine an even better theoretical bill does not make the heated, $hundred million opposition to this bill by Wall Street any less real.
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@joe from Lowell:
but… but… but Dodd-Frank was a give away/bailout/[insert hysteria here] to the banksters!!!
magisterludi
I believe Ms Rand was a chain-smoking hophead, addicted to amphetamines, which explains a lot. No one feels more invincible than a speed freak.
And “rugged individualist” is polite company talk for sociopath.
joe from Lowell
So, here’s now this is going to go now:
“Wall Street’s domination of our politics is absolute. It’s become impossible to reign them in, or adopt any policies they oppose, like increasing regulation on them.”
joe: Well, the Dodd-Frank bill increased regulation on them quite a bit. They fought it pretty hard, but it ended up passed.
“Pfft. Increasing regulation on Wall Street to any degree short of my ideal is a three-foot putt.”
joe: I thought you just said that Wall Street’s dominance in our politics made it impossible to push back against them.
“What are you, some kind of O-bot? Everyone knows you can pass some regulation on Wall Street. Why, it’s actually very easy.”
joe from Lowell
@Mike Kay (True Grit):
It’s called “deductive reasoning.”
1. Only bills that are giveaways to Wall Street can pass.
2. Dodd-Frank passed.
C: Therefore, Dodd-Frank was a giveaway to Wall Street.
Note that this line of reasoning requires absolutely zero knowledge about the contents of the Dodd-Frank bill, or what it does to Wall Street. You can decide you oppose it, and that those who support it are pro-Wall Street, without having to do any work considering or understanding it at all. You just have to wait to see what bill ends up available to pass, and decided you’re opposed to it entirely based on the possibility that it might pass.
In fact, many do, and have, for all sorts of legislation.
Bob Loblaw
@joe from Lowell:
Obama didn’t save capitalism. The Federal Reserve and its myriad trillion dollar lending facilities did. Which is a problem unto itself, for a completely different set of reasons.
If people in this thread want to castigate the “great man” theory of politics, then one must be consistent. The US Treasury is an itty bitty speck next to the almighty power of the Fed’s balance sheet.
joe from Lowell
Fair enough, Bob. I was using shorthand.
FlipYrWhig
@General Stuck:
You mean there’s a difference between “business” and “Wall Street”? No, this cannot be, we all know that there is but one hydra to slay, called Corporatism, and all businesses are its heads.
Except Apple. They’re cool.
kdaug
@Walker:
Key phrase: “plus or minus ten percent”.
And I’m feeling punitive.
Just between you and me (shh, don’t tell), I’ll be reasonable, and settle for 82.5%. But 90% is my target.
General Stuck
@ChrisS:
Someday you will figure out that politics is about two things. How many votes, or reality, and perceptions. No winger was going to vote for HCR. It was a matter of base ideology for them. I wish you all on the netroots would just stop focusing on what people say, and focus on what happens.
And what happened was HCR passed, and the reason there wasn’t a PO was because of democrats and Joe Lieberman, period. And just recently Obama wiped the floor with the wingers, at the last possible second, a three pointer from mid court, and it went in the basket to close out the most productive lame duck congress in history, and the most productive first two years for a presnit in many decades, at least.
And Obama has gotten a little jump in the polls for his overall approval, and all the pretty empty words of kumbaya
with the wingnuts fades into the ethers of history. And what remains is a tingly swing voter from hearing those pretty empty words. This game has many moving parts and it takes some intellectual effort to try and understand those moving parts, that make up the whole of governing and politics in this country. You focus on one thing, and you end up wrong, just about always. Things are about to get more serious however.
General Stuck
@FlipYrWhig:
No more or less than there is a difference between Obama and George W. Bush.
Brachiator
@FlipYrWhig:
And fezzes. Fezzes are cool.
Platonicspoof
@Mnemosyne:
This needs to be part of the descriptions, in addition to Krugman’s word for ‘rule by the ridiculous’, as well as kleptocracy, idiocracy, etc.
Maybe the encompassing term is something like this from the comments at Krugman’s post, where deanarms adds
joe from Lowell
@FlipYrWhig:
Nicely done. +1
Mike Kay (True Grit)
@General Stuck: he has a stunning 91% approval rating among self described liberal democrats (and half the poll was taken before DADT was repealed).
PeakVT
@kdaug: 90% of how much? If you look at the first and second charts in this otherwise lousy post, you can see how low in real terms the top bracket currently begins. 90% of $350,000 is different that 90% of $100,000,000.
Ruckus
@Mnemosyne:
Maybe it’s like the guy who didn’t like the service on the airline and took a dump on the food cart.
Maybe he’s supposed to stand on the podium at the sotu and jack off on everyone. Maybe that will show them he means business. Non of that talking stuff.
Suck It Up!
We need to just start ignoring these complaints. period. Nothing but Politico planting stories for their friends.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/80571/the-most-attention-money-can-buy
From Chait:
28 times since Obama’s 2nd damn month in office.
kdaug
@PeakVT:
Top marginal in 1942 was 94% on $200K ($2.6 mil, adjusted for inflation).
Dropped to 91% on $400K throughout the 1950’s (hence, Eisenhower). $3.1 mil, adjusted.
I’ll settle for 82.5% on anything over $5 mil.
And I’m being fucking generous.
Barb (formerly Gex)
@DougJ: Ah. But that was a deliberate policy by Republicans. Bush’s best work was done by just not funding regulation enforcement. Are they Dem voters?
pattonbt
@General Stuck:
And the other is remove “personhood” from corporations altogether. Make all enterprises partnerships (or equivalent) where directors, officers and management have personal stake and are liable for the companies actions, decisions and outcomes.
The current wall between personal and corporate responsibility is the biggest impediment to a more smoothly functioning and equitable economic structure.
Without personal responsibility, the people in the organizations can too easily shirk “due care” requirements for short term gratification.
General Stuck
@pattonbt:
Completely agree
agrippa
@General Stuck:
Quite so. There is a real need to get corporate /private money out of politics. It is tanatmonut to bribery; that is, deniable bribery.
Both parties to the transaction know enough to avoid a ‘quid pro quo’. Nothing need be said.
It is an interesting transaction: the donors bribe the politicians; the politicians extort money from the donors. Both are deniable.
There is underlying truth as well: 40 to 60% of the eligible voters do not vote. Without that underlying fact this corrupt system would be harder to maintain.
agrippa
American politics is an organized fatuity.
Quiddity
@Jack: I say it’s more a plutocracy than oligarchy.
priscianusjr
The one good thing about the way things have been going over the last few decades is that, whereas back in the day, the banks were running things hidden way in the background; now they’ve cannibalized that protective shield to such an extent that they are well in the foreground. Obama wasn’t wrong when he told them “I’m all that’s standing between you and the pitchforks.” You no longer have to be paranoid to see what the banksters are all about. America is now paying some attention to the man behind the curtain.
joe from Lowell
@PeakVT:
We have marginal tax brackets in this country, so we don’t collect “90% of $350,000.” If the 90% tax rate starts at $350,000, and you earn $350,001, they government only collects 90% of that $1 you earned over $350k.
Sasha
@FlipYrWhig:
And Google. Google’s name should also be put on the Protected scrolls.