Chomsky, 'Repbulicans dedicated with UTTER SERVILITY to the 1%'rs....

This isn't even a gross exaggeration anymore. The next 5-10% get a LITTLE LESS servility from the GOP but he's pretty damn close. (Ask Mr. "47%" who uses pages of tax code for HIS returns, that NONE of US ON THIS BOARD will ever be able to use and will not realize one damn DIME of tax savings from)....

Noam Chomsky: Republicans ‘dedicated with utter servility’ to the needs of the 1 percent
Scott Kaufman SCOTT KAUFMAN
05 DEC 2014 AT 09:08 ET

November elections, “was the lowest turnout since 1940, in the middle of [World War II], when people couldn’t vote.”

“Why? Because people understand what is shown in academic political science — that their voices just don’t matter. The opinions of the lowest 70 percent of the population — the lowest on the income scale — are simply disregarded.”


“As you move up the scale,” Chomsky continued, “you get a little bit more influence. When you get to the very top — the fraction of one percent of the population — they basically make policy.”

“What’s happened over the past 40 years is that both parties have shifted to the right. The Democrats are what used to be called ‘moderate Republicans,’ and the Republicans are just off the spectrum — they’re not even a parliamentary party anymore.”

“That’s even recognized by leading conservative analysts,” he said, citing the American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and his description of the party as a “radical insurgency.”

“You can see it ever since the Obama election. [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell and others made it explicit that they have only one policy — ruin the country as much as possible, hope that people will blame it on the Democrats, and then we can get power back and follow our program of dedicating ourselves with utter servility to the needs of the very rich and the corporate sector.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/...tter-servility-to-the-needs-of-the-1-percent/

 

I take serious issue with this statement:

“Why? Because people understand what is shown in academic political science — that their voices just don’t matter. The opinions of the lowest 70 percent of the population — the lowest on the income scale — are simply disregarded.”

The opinions WILL be taken seriously as soon as that 70% realizes they have only one voice and that is their vote. If they give that up, they lose. And they lost big in this last election.

 

A stumper for the Right...

If a person believed in plutocracy.....rule by the wealthy.....what policies and politics wouild they endorse....that a modern conservative would oppose?

 

And the Democrats aren't? Give me a break...Hillary gets her money from the 1%ers and so does Obama. Who do you think he was courting when he was always fundraising? They both do it, so you cannot take the moral high ground, can you?

 

I've asked several conservatives this question: name one issue or statute the Republicans have championed over the passed 30 years that would benefit the poorer or middle class over the 1%. And not one conservative has been able to identify one item.

 

While I agree that money plays way too big a role in politics, this is a false equivalency argument I've seen from many of our conservative friends. The Republicans have been far more in bed with pushing the 1% agenda.

It wasn't the Republicans who promoted raising the minimum wage, passing health care reform, raising taxes on millionaires, cutting FICA taxes, promoting unions representation, expanding unemployment benefits, or regulating business. It was Democrats.

 

That's because your question is Marxist in nature, and only a similarly Marxist answer would work. You're asking the wrong group if that's what you are looking for. Conservatives believe in the concept of a "rising tide that lifts all boats", whereas progressives want to penalize certain groups in order to enrich others (the latter whom, coincidentally I'm sure, are likely to vote for progressives and their party).

 

That's because Republicans believe all of these things are harmful to society. Raising the minimum wage costs jobs, both in terms of layoff and the forgoing of additional hiring. The CBO agreed with this finding, indicating that a million jobs could be lost if the minimum wage was raised to the arbitrary level that Democrats decided. The same findings can be seen in regulating businesses, which make it harder for them to expand and hire.

 

It's apparent that Republicans claim to believe that anything that doesn't funnel more of the nation's income and wealth to the 1% is "harmful to society."

 

That is because all any liberal can do to define 'benefit' is more benefits or handouts.

 

While I know the conservatives claim to believe that, since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, only 10% of the boats have seen any significant rise. And the top 1% and top 0.1% have seen their boats rise well above the tide.

 

Maybe you could contact Obama's buddy Imelt about that.

 

That is not how I define it at all. Next baseless and erroneous comment?

 

Of course not yet it always ends up there in the end. You guys never see the damage you do with your unicorn ideas.

 

Why should I do that?

- - - Updated - - -

What are you blathering about now?

 

Right, because poor people not being able to get jobs will really do wonders for their finances. Let's set the minimum wage at $20 an hour, we'll see how many of those 70%'ers get hired when they have to compete against college graduates and people with a lot of skills and experience.

 

And, naturally, a tax difference is the reason for this. It's not because the US no longer has a strong manufacturing segment of the economy and is no longer a producer economy.

 

Right, because raising taxes on the poor, slashing taxes for the richest, busting unions, holding down the minimum wage, and outsourcing jobs and the rest of the Reagan revolution will cause the income and wealth to "trickle down" on the bottom 99%.



Gosh, where have we heard that before?

 

I know how to get rid of crony capitialism! Just grow government. Said the liberal.

 

It's self evident that raising taxes the working middle/poorer classes pay while slashing taxes the richest mostly pay would be a factor. But why do you think it's just taxes?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, conservative administrations have been *much* better at growing the government for crony capitalism than liberals could imagine.

Compare:

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.

Bush
Federal Spending increase, 2001-2006: +42.5%

 

That's odd, you suggesting raising taxes on the poor, both by getting rid of the Bush Tax cuts completely, and by artificially raising the price of gas by taxing it in order to drive down demand. I thought you were all for raising taxes on the poor?

And which Republican led initiatives raised taxes on the poor?

And globalization and outsourcing had no effect on anything. It was all the result of a tax decrease.

- - - Updated - - -

Where have Republicans advocated for raising taxes on the poor and middle class while slashing them on the rich? I'm aware of them cutting taxes for everybody, which was the net effect of Reagan and GWB's Presidencies.

 

Hi Brah!

I see we've progressed to fighting over which party is less controlled by money... that is a tough one.

 

Where is this rising of all boats? All I have seen since I have become a working adult is a flattening of the growth of the middle classes income. The Top percentile does not seem to share in this stagnation.

 

Uh oh, looks like CHOMSKY read NICHOLS or vice versa....


http://www.thenation.com/blog/192057/[B]bogus[/B]-bipartisanship-congress-cooperates-service-corporations


The problem with bipartisanship as it is currently understood is that, for the most part, cooperation in Congress serves the elites that already are living large thanks to federal tax policies that redistribute wealth upward.

That was certainly the case this week, when the US House voted 378-46 for the so-called “Tax Increase Prevention Act.”

Hailed by politicians and pundits as an example of Congress coming together to get something done, the measure—which still must be considered by a somewhat skeptical Senate—is better understood as a glaring example of what it wrong with Washington.

 

Meanwhile, ObamaCo has fattened up Wall Street 1%ers with 100's of billions in inflationary QE and ZIRP over the past 6 years....hoping they'll "trickle down" some down on Main Street. one day.