The Oligarchy Reigns!
 

I'm sort of half Canadian, half American. I was raised in Queens, NYC, but spent 2 months every summer in Nova Scotia with my Grandmothers. I went to university, served in the RCAF, and then went to engineering school here in Nova Scotia. I went back to the US for grad school in 1963, and taught engineering in the US until 1984. Returning to NS in '84, I've been here ever since.

If you add it up, I lived in the USA for 38 years, and in Canada for 35 (not counting summers as a kid). Perhaps that qualifies me to say that I see the US sliding down a slippery slope toward oligarchy these days, and this column by Frank Rich in the Sunday NYTimes makes my point perfectly: "The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party". The Golden Rule --- He who has the Gold Rules! What a shame.

That's so sad. What's wrong with republicanism or democracy?

Yes, and this is how we see Canadians...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sktUG-Drk8

I'm not sure it's ever been all that far away from it. Not that the U.S is unique in that regard.

I don't get it, unfortunately. :confused: and I don't have any problem with folks making fun of Canadians, either -- I see them pretty clearly.

Stereotypes = poor representation of fact.

We also have the Coffee Party.

A bad stereotype is Panasonic :D.

What is the article trying to say about this quote and Obama? My political IQ is low so please give me your take on it.

A vocal minority doubts his citizenship, religion, and patriotism; one wonders why Obama doesn't respond more vigorously and forcefully to refute such errant nonsense. Surely such a skilled rhetorician as Obama could be more influential than Jon Stewart chastising Tucker Carlson to "stop hurting America".

So you think the article was stereotypical? In what way? After all, the column is not about politics, per se; it's about who's paying the freight and what's in it for them. It's a follow the money piece. And I'm not being anti-American either, Craig -- I have two American children, 5 American grandchildren, and a nephew with his three kids all living there.

I can feel the temperature rising in the room and I hope we'll all remain calm enough to discuss this rationally. The money trail in politics has been a major concern for several millennia now (not just in the US, obviously). If people could remain rational, this could be a good thread.

Yes indeed, Jay; I didn't mean this as an anti-American polemic -- it was, after all, in the NYTimes, and as I said, I have great sympathy for America and Americans -- it's a great country brought low by the moneybags in my view. I was a great fan of Obama's when he ran for President; now I'm not so sure -- he doesn't seem to be grasping the nettle. That's not meant as a political statement, per se; I mean that he's not using his position as effectively as I'd hoped he would.

Personally I've liked how he's worked out. Both extremes seem to hate him, which means he's seemed to fulfill his goal of being a moderate.

In my opinion, the head of state shouldn't be an "extreme leader" except (perhaps) in time of war (think Churchill). They should be more like a good CEO of a large company, taking everyones view into consideration and then doing what's best for the company as a whole. The idea that Obama should force anyones views on anyone else is the antithesis of what this country (or dare I say any country) needs right now.

My hope is that, given time, this perspective might repair the rift in American politics. Things are far too didactic right now. It's not about picking sides, we're all Americans. We need to be discussing these difficult problems and finding a good solution. And nobody seems to want to right now...

Both American and Canadian politics have become much too polarized. It'll be interesting to see how the British experiment works out -- a real collaboration or a disaster.

Big money will always control politics . Do you really believe its the voters that control the direction of the government , government policy , government investment .?

Think again . It the big Corporations . They have been doing so for decades

I'm not going to lose any sleep over the rich running the world of politics.... because they don't. Neither do corporations. Most assuredly they both try. Sometimes they are even successful to a point. But last time I looked, the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Hardly an outcome that favors the wealthy few. This would have never been allowed if the elite were in actual control.

I think the jury is still out on the Obama administration. Health care reform, though obviously not what we had hoped for, was passed. It's a starting point. We are pretty much out of Iraq, well at least the combat brigades. The economy is still hanging in there and that's not bad given where it was just 18 months ago... but Obama is taking the hits for the stimulus programs and deficit spending started by GWB.

The Tea party is nothing more (in my humble view) than smart Republicans tapping in on the discontent of the average Joe. A simple strategy... blame those in power for all the problems even though it was their predecessors who brought us to the brink. They're banking on the short memories of American voters (probably a good bet).

The real test is about to hit... will Obama and the Democrats extend the GWB tax cuts for the wealthy or let them expire? This is where we will find out who Obama really is if he has the guts to let them expire. If he extends them, then he has bought into the wrong philosophy and betrayed a campaign promise.

wow, some you guys should run for office, you sound smarter than at least some of the smart-butts running the US right now. Really enjoying this discussion. Sadly, not a lot of rational people where I come from.

I think you’re wrong there. The Oligarchy is truly bipartisan. As the maneuvering and endless watering down of recent major bills has clearly shown, plenty of votes have been bought on both sides of the aisle.

We could have had a strong Health Care Reform bill; we could have had a strong Financial Reform bill. We don’t.

To me it’s unfathomable that the Tea Party folks don’t realize they’re merely a tool.

We could have had a more solid economic recovery and a much lower unemployment rate. We don't.

And it could have been much worse, heck, it could have devolved into WWIII as long as we're going into hypotheticals. WWII was, in part, incited by a global market failure.

Or, continuing the hypotheticals, perhaps it should have precipitated a greater boom. The market went all wacky in the late 70's and recovered int the early 80's, only to crash again and then recover to give us the stock happy 90s, right? I mean, it was great until the market crashed in 2000, came back up and then crashed again in 2005. My guess is the next crash will be in 2015 if we stay with this same cycle. Let's hear it for fickle markets!

Personally, I don't see economic performance as being terribly indicative of a presidents performance. Like you said, it could have been better, but it could have been worse, and frankly, nobody knows what kind of effect we really had on fixing the whole thing (or if we could have done any better or worse, for that matter). And you know what, we never will. The economy is so huge at this point that there is no actual way to trace the performance of all the composite sectors. It's just too big.

Anyway, I'm rambling. My only point is that the economy is not the right criteria to judge either Obama or Bush by (or anyone in congress or the respective presidential administrations).

Hmmm, it didn't feel like I was judging either Obama or Bush; just supporting ArcticStone's assertion that the oligarchy is bipartisan. For whatever reason, those with the Gold decided that it was desirable to have 10% unemployment and an American economic engine running at only 80% of capacity.

Stay tuned.

I just thought of health-care… I know it's less expensive in Canada than in the US, but still, I believe they could do some work on that.

It is the rich who rule. They influence the Democrats. The Pacific Scandal of the 1880's was the Prime Minister being bribed over a railroad decision.

Not sure I understand a bi-partisan Oligarchy. If they are not of a like mind, what exactly is it they are conspiring to achieve? To be sure, the rich/corporations have their input and they do impact pretty much everything. But they do not control (IMO). Poverty, btw, is bi-partisan, too.

One on my state's Senators was the deciding vote on health care reform. Refused to sign a bill with a public health care option & forced the compromise. She also sponsored a financial reform bill that passed. Up for re-election in November, she is running a full 30 percent behind her Republican challenger and she will lose.... badly. She's been targeted by the out of state special interest groups who are hammering her (spending millions) on the stimulus spending and her vote for health care reform. No way this lady is a liberal, but she is being painted as one and that just won't fly in this state. (Liberal here equals pro-abortion, pro gay rights, pro gun control, pro welfare, pro heavy taxes, pro big government and anti Christian.)

Not even full support and endorsements from Clinton and Obama can overcome that label.

So, sure, this is nothing more than the money folks exercising their power and sending a loud and clear message to any who oppose them.... they will come for you and you will pay a dear price. (IMO, one would have to be crazy to vote for someone who opposed the stimulus package. What, let the economy and banking system collapse? Sheer nonsense to elect someone who would take that chance.)

Think you over estimate the Tea party. Not sure most even have a clue they are supporting the conservative message.... one would have thought Palin's support was enough make that clear, but apparently not. Mostly they are just PO'd with the way the nation and economy are going and are looking for a way to lash out against those in power from either party. While I share their discontent, I will not be voting with them until they put out a specific agenda as to what they DO support.

Influence, rather than direct control, can yield desirable results at a lesser cost. Neither the politicians nor the wealthy are constrained to a particular homogenous ideology. Differing goals are not always mutually exclusive. They are clever enough to know this. And that a slight change in the angle of trajectory significantly alters the destination. And that it is possible to fool enough of the people enough of the time.

Totally agree. But, I would add that I think they would take total control if they could. Not a fence so high that a donkey loaded with gold can't jump over it.

If Obama and the Democrats cave into the pressure to extend the GWB tax cuts for the wealthy, then they will be drinking the Kool Aid... and have bought into the Republican mantra that taxes on the wealthy hurt the economy and kills jobs (and to heck with the deficit). When both parties buy into that one, we are lost.

During boom times, corporations typically overextend themselves (believing that the boom will go on for a while), opening new facilities, beefing up staff and production workers, increasing production, stockpiling raw materials etc. During that time, their real productivity goes down, but it's a boom so they can raise prices a bit to cover that.

When the inevitable recession that follows a boom hits them, the economic reality check, if you will, corporations try to retrench, spending dollars on improving productivity with new or upgraded machinery, processes, etc., and they lay off workers. Further, because demand is down, they don't rehire; they work on efficiently meeting what demand there is without increases in staffing.

It's not that corporations *want* 10% unemployment; that's just a consequence of their upgrade strategy.

Well, the Koch brothers are scary, but saying that makes me feel like conspiracy theorist.

As in business, the focus of politics is too often on the short term. Re-election tends to take precedence.

Here's a really negative view of the current state of the US economy and political scene in a Canadian newspaper (The National Post) known to be on the moderate right of the political spectrum. It's written by Conrad Black, currently out on bail from pending a court decision from a six-year sentence in Florida for fraudulently skimming Hollinger International (a newspaper conglomerate that used to include the National Post and several British newspapers). He relinquished his Canadian citizenship, btw, in order to become Lord Black in Britain -- we don't have a peerage.

American Apocalypse. The jist of the commentary is that the US has had a series of four failed presidencies.

Don't shoot the messenger -- I just posted the link.

Not to worry, guns aren't allowed on these premises. :)

Hey. I have a permit. :)

@Nova Scotian. Ha. Must bug this guy to death that the US has the largest economy in the world.... and that includes the largest manufacturing sector.

And, the Golden Age of Herbert Hoover? Wasn't he the President that led us into the BIG ONE that lasted more than a decade? And kept us there with tariffs and protectionist policies? And wasn't it Reagan who started the first peacetime rounds of massive national debt? Don't think I'll be following this guy's economic advice.

Millionaires always think they know it all AEH, but there's a modicum of truth through it all.

I like your analysis, but I disagree with this conclusion. Having an excess of labor for a while will drive down wages. When they start hiring again they'll get their workers back at a discount.

Indeed. You can tax an economy into the poor house. You can save money by cutting the social programs, education, military, and a host of other programs including pensions. You can cut social security and get the Congress off the hook for their obligation to pay and prevent future obligations by putting everyone's SS contribution into the stock market. You can save tax dollars by killing/cutting/cost shifting throughout the Medicare system. You can kill Medicaid for the poor and disabled. You can keep wages down by destroying unions, ignoring immigration laws, killing minimum wage, and supporting free trade instead of fair trade. Without all those obligations, taxes would be pretty cheap and profits would be high.

But, we'd also have a 3rd world nation and a population that could not afford even the basics of subsistence. And of course, even the poor would pay the "flat tax" rate of 23 percent on everything they purchase... and then the state sales tax of another 7 - 10 percent on top of that. But of course, the flat tax won't apply to investment income like stocks, bonds, capital gains, and on and on. (Called the "Fair Tax," this tax system overhaul is currently in committee... waiting for a Republican majority before it comes up for a vote.)

Is that the America we want?

A modicum of truth that high taxes can hurt you, low investment can hurt you, and high wages can price you out of the international market. But these guys need a little moderation in their grand scheme for world subjugation.

The above is not nearly as far off the mark as the American Apocalypse writer. Easy to make up gloom and doom scenarios and paint the other side as demons.

.
That’s exactly what I mean. The trajectory analogy fits.

By influencing key participators on “both sides” of a debate, you have more influence over the “trajectory” of the debate and the policy enacted (or hollowed out, as the case may be). Thus there is no need to have anyone “running your errand”.

This really shouldn’t be surprising. Money is power, and power finds a way. But there are sophisticated and unsophisticated ways of exerting that power.
.