Why do the super-rich keep comparing obama to hitler? Atlantic article:

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Feb 6, 2014.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Feb 6, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014

    jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    An entertaining, but, informative article on why the super-rich are so worried right now.


    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/why-do-the-super-rich-keep-comparing-obama-to-hitler/283404/

    Entertainment aside, the article digs into why the super-rich are so upset. Worth reading.
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    Look at how many articles demonize the "top one percent" of incomes, as though having a large income is somehow evil and badnasty in and of itself. This sort of thing is a historical method of demonizing a class.

    You don't need any Obama = Hitler nonsense to see that various groups are indeed demonizing the wealthy or the high-income types. Trouble is, anytime somebody points out the techniques used by Goebbels et al, someone tries to denigrate the argument by yowling, "Hitler!"

    Detractors don't seem to differentiate among the various types of wealthy or high-income people.

    I dunno. I don't see Oprah as evil, for all that her net worth is some $2.5 billion. I don't figure that Gates, Jobs, Turner, Buffet or John Elway ever stole anything from me. So a network newshen makes twelve million a year? I am harmed, how?

    Jamie Dimon seems to be stealing from the whole danged country, but he has the government on his side--along with most of the other 0.1%.
     
  3. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #3
    Most people don't demonize all wealthy people, just those that abuse their wealth to pay as little into society as possible. They see a problem with there being such wealth discrepancy, and insult those that work to keep it that way.
     
  4. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #4
    You should blame the government for making the tax rules and not the wealthy people for following tax rules. Heck I'm not wealthy by any means but I try to find every rule I can to minimize my tax exposure so why shouldn't they? It is their money first not yours. By yours I mean the governments.
     
  5. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #5
    And the only way for the government to not be indebted to the people who pay for them, and thus buying people who lower taxes far more than they should, is to stop them from being able to pay for it. I'm not saying the politicians are blameless, they're not. We're in a system where the person with the most money wins, though (over 90% of the time).
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    "Most people don't demonize all wealthy people, just those that abuse their wealth to pay as little into society as possible."

    True, for "most people". However, the hard-core left is unremitting in its characterization of wealthy people as abusers of society. Just the use of the phrase "fair share" in taxation issues is a clue.

    Hey, look: I am in full accord with the OWSie view of "bad stuff", okay? Hell's bells, I'd read Matt Taibbi long before! :) Trouble was, the promulgated ideas for solutions called for more of the same nonsense which caused the problems in the first place. IOW, they knew there's a problem, but not the cause. And that general group is unending in demonizing The Rich.
     
  7. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #7
    Well, of course there will be some people who are extremists. I wouldn't listen to them anymore than I would listen to the people who... well, there are a lot of crazies that you shouldn't listen to.
     
  8. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #8
    Of course they're following the rules. Those rules were written especially for them! Why else do you think people like the Koch brothers donate so much to election campaigns?
     
  9. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #9
    This is the typical liberal statement: I don't like government giving special benefits to the rich and well-connected so let's prevent them from doing that. Let's write a law and give the government more power. The problem is that the people writing the laws are corporations and lobbyists specifically benefitting themselves during that process. Witness the Medicare Part D legislation, Dodd-Frank, ACA, and many others.

    We don't need more laws written by more crony capitalists (really fascism). I think the libertarian approach is more realistic. Let's have fewer laws giving government less power and forcing it to be smaller.

    If you can show me how we can "stop them from being able to pay for it," I'm open to any solutions.

    I used to be a Democrat but then I realized they are no different than Republicans. They just want more power and more money. They are all statists in the end.
     
  10. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #10
    Publicly funded elections. We get a constitution amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decisions that said corporations are people/money is speech. Also, crony capitalism is a big problem that isn't a big government thing, the libertarian way wouldn't fix anything.

    It would only make it worse.

    By the way, a lot of the examples you gave were summed down for the sake of a big business. If they didn't have the influence, it'd be a lot better. Dodd-Frank? ACA? Watered down bills. Imagine if we had gotten strong reform with either.
     
  11. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #11
    Those bills were specifically written to benefit big business.

    Publicly funded elections wouldn't work, though I support it. The money would still flow in other ways. As long as government has power, business will find a way to control that power.
     
  12. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #12
    Unless we get a constitutional amendment to stop that.
     
  13. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    There are laws to prevent abuse in campaign finance today. They do nothing to curtail the problem. The money goes underground.

    You know we had a constitutional amendment to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol? How did that turn out?
     
  14. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #14
    And there is a Supreme Court decision that pretty much guts any attempt to really do campaign reform right now.
     
  15. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #15
    Yeah, like things were perfect before that decision.
     
  16. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #16
    There were a lot better.

    Is your defense for everything "well, yeah, but it wouldn't be perfect so better not try"?
     
  17. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
    No, not at all. But that decision should have sealed the point that corporations control government. I'd like to limit that control.
     
  18. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #18
    And the start is to find a way to counter these decisions. We can do that by ... an amendment. Beyond that? We can't do much.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    I don't understand. I keep seeing you and others that I see as having similar viewpoints as painting the government as (seemingly) always bad. But here you admit (and I agree) that corporations control the government, but aren't you a "free market" guy that wants corporations regulated less and less (as if there is any enforcement anymore)?

    How does one with that mindset come to the conclusion that its the government itself that is the problem, rather than the decades long crusade of corporations to take over and undermine the american publics control of the institution that is rightfully theirs (the government)?
     
  20. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #20
    It's fairly simple. Without government assistance, corporations would have to fend for themselves. They would have to create products and services that appeal to me and you. So many corporations exist only because government has given them special status. They couldn't survive in a free market with real competition. In fact, they would cease to exist.

    The corporations you hate the most (oil companies, insurance companies, banks) are likely to have the most influence in government. The ones you like (Apple?) have the least and are forced to appeal to the consumer and beat their intense competition.

    I have faith in the free market and the individual consumer. I don't have faith in a government that is controlled by a corporation.

    Now, I'm not an extreme case. The free market can not solve all problems and government is needed to help those in need. There is room for that. But unfortunately, all of that effort goes wasted due to corruption.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    The "free market" went away during the 1930s, in many ways. The Great Society and ensuing legislation pretty well ended any semblance of a free market.

    Crony capitalism, corporate welfare/socialism, whatever: Damned sure not free market.

    How do you get this "cleansing" constitutional amendment, when it must be initiated by those who would be harmed by it?
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Is "went away" a new euphemism for "crashed and burned"?
     
  23. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #23
    Yes, yes it is.
     
  24. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #24
    There is only one way to fix the broken goverment:

    "The people" must closely monitor the goverment and hold them responsible at the next election instead of basing their votes on side-show issues -> fat chance
     
  25. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #25
    I have no sympathy for 'predicament' of the rich. None. Again and again over the past few years those who have commanded outrageous salaries, controlled businesses on which thousands of employees depended for employment, and lobbied governments for a 'light touch' to regulation have revealed themselves to be dishonest hypocrites or incompetents. We are in the current economic crises (for the most of us) because of decisions made directly or unduly influenced by these people. Our only defence against them is education and the vote.
     

Share This Page