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

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 11, 2010
1,100
1,293
An entertaining, but, informative article on why the super-rich are so worried right now.

First, they came for the bailed-out bankers' bonuses, and I did not speak out, because I wasn't a banker.

Then they came for the hedge fund managers' tax loophole, and I did not speak out, because I wasn't a hedge fund manager.

Then they came for novelist Danielle Steel's hedges, and finally I did speak out, because I know her, and I'm a knight—a literal knight of the Kingdom of Norway—so I thought I'd get on my high horse and charge forth in her defense.


This is the Ballad of Tom Perkins, Silicon Valley's legendary venture capitalist. He had to speak out after he saw the appalling way the San Francisco Chronicle disparaged his ex-wife Ms. Steel's plots, prose, and shrubbery.

He showed that, for now at least, the pen is still mightier than even a knight's sword. He wrote a letter in the Wall Street Journal explaining that progressive attacks on today's so-called "1 percent"—the "rich"—are just like the Nazis' attacks on their 1 percent—the Jews. A new Kristallnacht, basically. Oops. That's insensitive. Perkins apologized on Bloomberg TV for using that word ... though he did point out that Occupy protesters broke windows at a Wells Fargo and luxury car dealerships in San Francisco. And that, he reminded us, is how Kristallnacht began.

So don't kid yourself. Today, they're coming for Bentleys. Tomorrow, they'll come for Aston Martins. The time to speak out is 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.
 
Last edited:

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
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%.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
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%.
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.
 

edk99

macrumors 6502a
May 27, 2009
701
709
FL
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.
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.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
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.
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).
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
"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.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
"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.
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.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
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.
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?
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
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).
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.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
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.
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.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
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.
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.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
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.
Unless we get a constitutional amendment to stop that.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
Unless we get a constitutional amendment to stop that.
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?
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
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?
And there is a Supreme Court decision that pretty much guts any attempt to really do campaign reform right now.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
There were a lot better.

Is your defense for everything "well, yeah, but it wouldn't be perfect so better not try"?
No, not at all. But that decision should have sealed the point that corporations control government. I'd like to limit that control.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,262
7,298
No, not at all. But that decision should have sealed the point that corporations control government. I'd like to limit that control.
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.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,999
No, not at all. But that decision should have sealed the point that corporations control government. I'd like to limit that control.
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)?
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
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)?
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.
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
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?
 

Bug-Creator

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2011
552
2,131
Germany
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
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
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.