Great viewpoint on the 1%.

[Bfgrn]

Glad to know America's standard is Mexico and the Dominican Republic. If the right has their way it would be Somalia.

It is AMAZING how easy it is for the right to just gloss over the facts in your opening set of qualifiers (EXCUSES).

WB: "Yes, it is true that 99% of the wealth in this country is in the hands of 1% of the population"

THAT is an aristocracy. There is no way around it.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

 

[WinterBorn]

Exactly! There will always be wealthy people who want to use that wealth to buy power. The peoples power is the ability to vote, those who would be bought, out of power. All the yammering against the wealthy is vanity. The danger however, as history has taught us, is that there are those who would use the anger over such abuses for themselves to gain or retain power.

One of the problems is that the system is getting harder to crack from the outside. The politicians are raising money from people who donate the max or from groups. A grassroots candidate cannot possibly match that. In the past, the grassrooots guy could make a great showing for an early primary and use that to raise money. But the speed at which the primaries roll in now will not allow that. By the time the message gets out and they start to raise money, they have missed 2 or 3 more primaries and have lost the race.

 

[WinterBorn]

Glad to know America's standard is Mexico and the Dominican Republic. If the right has their way it would be Somalia.

It is AMAZING how easy it is for the right to just gloss over the facts in your opening set of qualifiers (EXCUSES).

WB: "Yes, it is true that 99% of the wealth in this country is in the hands of 1% of the population"

THAT is an aristocracy. There is no way around it.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Nice to see you understand the issue. Also nice to see you are consistent in your replies.

If someone discusses gun control, your response is "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy".

If we discuss gay marriage, your response is "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy".

If we discuss the dying economy, your response is "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy".



But while you are surfing thru looking for a new place to complain about the conservatives wanting to dominate society by creating an aristocracy, how about filling us in about what the liberals have done to create a better society? The "millionaires row" that is the DNC sure hasn't fixed anything that I can see.

Or perhaps you can explain why debts should just be erased?

Or maybe even explain why things of value should just be given away so that everyone can have the same stuff? (and it would be especially great if you could elaborate on how this would effect the economy?)

 

[Bfgrn]

Nice to see you understand the issue. Also nice to see you are consistent in your replies.

If someone discusses gun control, your response is "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy".

If we discuss gay marriage, your response is "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy".

If we discuss the dying economy, your response is "Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy".



But while you are surfing thru looking for a new place to complain about the conservatives wanting to dominate society by creating an aristocracy, how about filling us in about what the liberals have done to create a better society? The "millionaires row" that is the DNC sure hasn't fixed anything that I can see.

Or perhaps you can explain why debts should just be erased?

Or maybe even explain why things of value should just be given away so that everyone can have the same stuff? (and it would be especially great if you could elaborate on how this would effect the economy?)

I completely understand the issue. Your Monica Lewinsky of the rich post shows you don't understand the issue. If America aspires to be a little better than 3rd world countries, we are no longer 'the city upon the hill'.

What did liberals do to create a better society? The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the close of the 1960's, due to a weak and splintered Democratic party caused by the Vietnam War and political assassinations. It ushered in a conservative era that has continued ever since. It has been a total failure of governance based on a regressive ideology. It has been a disaster, a negative mirror image of the liberal era. Ronald Reagan was the biggest socialist in history. He is the pied piper on the road to serfdom. He began a systematic dismantling of all the gains the middle class had secured. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

Conservatives have built nothing in 30 +years...NOTHING. They have only destroyed and torn down everything our grandparents and parents built together as ONE nation, one people.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

 

[apple0154]

I think it states things very well. Yes, there is inequity. But no one is starving. The protest is about being able to buy "stuff". They want debts erased. I have a serious issue with erasing debts. At some point, the person in debt went to someone and said "if you will please give me Yada, I will pay you back X amount". They got the product or service and now they don't want to pay for it. Who pays? The tax payer? The person who produced it?

I am all for equity. But I am not all for trying to make sure everyone has the same sized house, the same number of new cars and the same income.

People may not be starving but many are going hungry.

As for people getting a product/service and not paying for it most people realize if they didn't buy a house at a certain point they would never be able to afford one. In many cases the down payment was the obstacle. Trying to save for a down payment while paying rent was impossible for many people. The fatal flaw with the housing act/initiative was it should have been limited to first time home buyers only. That would have prevented the housing boom and unrealistic rising prices as speculators wouldn't have become involved.

As far as inequity/inequality is involved if we consider the average wage is $50,000/yr and permits one to buy a home and a car and afford a dinner every night is the person earning $500,000/yr (10 X) entitled to 10 homes and 10 dinners? Is the person earning $5 million a year entitled to 100 homes and 100 dinners and 100 automobiles?

 

[WinterBorn]

I completely understand the issue. Your Monica Lewinsky of the rich post shows you don't understand the issue. If America aspires to be a little better than 3rd world countries, we are no longer 'the city upon the hill'.

What did liberals do to create a better society? The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city upon the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the close of the 1960's, due to a weak and splintered Democratic party caused by the Vietnam War and political assassinations. It ushered in a conservative era that has continued ever since. It has been a total failure of governance based on a regressive ideology. It has been a disaster, a negative mirror image of the liberal era. Ronald Reagan was the biggest socialist in history. He is the pied piper on the road to serfdom. He began a systematic dismantling of all the gains the middle class had secured. Reagan transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He looted Social Security to cover the shortfalls of his tax cuts for the wealthy. And the whole 'small businessman is the engine of growth' was cruel rhetoric. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent under Reagan.

Conservatives have built nothing in 30 +years...NOTHING. They have only destroyed and torn down everything our grandparents and parents built together as ONE nation, one people.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

Oh please spare me your desires to return to "Ozzie & Harriet" days.

There are numerous reasons for our shared prosperity and numerous reasons for its decline. The New Deal made sure no one starved, and we are still doing that.

Look at the politicians elected by BOTH sides of the aisle. They are rich people supported by rich coprorations and groups. Clinton's claim to a balanced budget only works if you ignore the massive amount of money looted from Social Security.

Again I ask, should we forgive debts and give shit away so people believe it is fair?

This is about "stuff", not survival. In this country you will only starve if you choose to ignore the services available to you. The point of the OP was that people here forget how great we do have it.

 

[WinterBorn]

People may not be starving but many are going hungry.

As for people getting a product/service and not paying for it most people realize if they didn't buy a house at a certain point they would never be able to afford one. In many cases the down payment was the obstacle. Trying to save for a down payment while paying rent was impossible for many people. The fatal flaw with the housing act/initiative was it should have been limited to first time home buyers only. That would have prevented the housing boom and unrealistic rising prices as speculators wouldn't have become involved.

As far as inequity/inequality is involved if we consider the average wage is $50,000/yr and permits one to buy a home and a car and afford a dinner every night is the person earning $500,000/yr (10 X) entitled to 10 homes and 10 dinners? Is the person earning $5 million a year entitled to 100 homes and 100 dinners and 100 automobiles?

The point is, someone or some group thinks those people have skills worth $500k or $5 million. Yes there is inequity. But this constant focus on what you do not have is a cancer. What the Occupy people are wanting will not fix the economy. Unless we revitalize the economy, none of the rest of it will matter.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your Monica Lewinsky of the rich post shows you don't understand the issue.

How about you trim back the bullshit and we discuss this like adult, m'kay? Can you manage to contain your insulting rhetoric long enough to do that?

 

[Bfgrn]

Oh please spare me your desires to return to "Ozzie & Harriet" days.

There are numerous reasons for our shared prosperity and numerous reasons for its decline. The New Deal made sure no one starved, and we are still doing that.

Look at the politicians elected by BOTH sides of the aisle. They are rich people supported by rich coprorations and groups. Clinton's claim to a balanced budget only works if you ignore the massive amount of money looted from Social Security.

Again I ask, should we forgive debts and give shit away so people believe it is fair?

This is about "stuff", not survival. In this country you will only starve if you choose to ignore the services available to you. The point of the OP was that people here forget how great we do have it.

Spare me your ignorant caricatures of the New Deal and the liberal era. The New Deal did much more than make sure no one starved. It created the largest growth in GDP in history. EVERY single law that helps average Americans came from liberals and progressives.

Today's 'conservatives' are the closest thing to the communists that infested the Soviet Union. If we follow their agenda, we will become a failed state. Unless you believe Medieval blood letting saves lives?

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

 

[apple0154]

The point is, someone or some group thinks those people have skills worth $500k or $5 million. Yes there is inequity. But this constant focus on what you do not have is a cancer. What the Occupy people are wanting will not fix the economy. Unless we revitalize the economy, none of the rest of it will matter.

The point is the people who invested in the money scams lost but the government bailed them out. What about the person who invested in a home and saw the value drop? Why isn't the government bailing them out?

As for fixing the economy giving money back to the investors will not fix the economy. Why would they spend that money in the US building businesses when they have already built factories elsewhere?

There is no way the US can compete with countries that have low wages unless a new way of producing goods is realized. That problem is separate from the bailout. Unless there is a way to compete companies are not going to put that money back in the economy.

From what I can see the occupiers are demonstrating against the unfairness of the situation. I realize the loans/investment packages are/were guaranteed by the government so the government had to pay the losses. (In a way it's similar to the FDIC. If a bank is robbed the money deposited by the average person is guaranteed by the government.) That said, the government should have had proper oversight. If the government is responsible for losses it has a right to be involved in the banking/investment business. To take tax dollars from struggling citizens to give money to banks/investment companies so they can give huge bonuses to their CEOs is outrageous.

If businesses are too big to fail perhaps it's time the government took them over or split them up.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I saw this today and thought it was a great perspective on the 1% stuff.


"Before you get grouchy over this note, I understand the complaints of the Occupy movement and am not trying to belittle the struggles of the poor in this country, I just want to bring a sense of perspective to this debate.

Yes, it is true that 99% of the wealth in this country is in the hands of 1% of the population, but at the same time, even the lower level of the 99% is well in the top 1% globally. I am not just spewing statistics. I have been in some of the poorest areas of the US, namely helping with cleanup in the Lower 9th ward in NOLA after Katrina. First of all, if anyone in the country gets to complain, it is that bottom 5% that, instead of just having too much debt legitimately has to make decisions between things like food or rent. But as bad as that was, my trips to Mexico, where their middle class lives like our bottom 5%, and I saw families living in broken down buses, or shanties made of rotted 2x4's and rusted sheet metal, and the children were lucky to have pants, much less shoes, showed me the true depths of poverty and need. When you've had a little girl tug your shirtsleeve asking for more Kool-aid, because it is the greatest thing she's ever had, it gives you perspective on things. This poverty is right across our border, and as bad as it was is probably still in the top 50% of the world.

During my time at the University of Alabama I had the blessing of living with international students and calling many of them my close friends. The stories from them, especially those from Southeast Asia, Africa and the Indian subcontinent were eye-opening. At they all understood how well they had it compared to most in their country, how just the ability to be educated at all was a blessing, especially considering the fact that many American universities require an international student to show a bank account holding nearly a half a million dollars to be able to attend. There is no offer made for aid, only scholarships for the few that earn them.

Perhaps the biggest lesson I learned from these friends was too take life for what it is, and to find happiness in it. The most amazing example of this I saw was during a trip to the Dominican Republic. This island is one where there is very little wealth to go around, many people we saw lived in run-down huts in small villages in the jungle, and had no regular utilities at all, power in their homes was unheard-of except the elite, and they washed their clothes in a river or stream. Despite all of this they were the happiest people I have ever met (and the youngest looking...). For people who had to climb trees, fish and forage for regular food, there were almost no complaints. They had learned to live with what they had available and to enjoy what was important in life.

So my point is, yes there is inequity in the country and not everyone has the same access and ability to reach the top. But we are crazy to think that we are anything but gifted by our accident of birth in one of the richest places in the world... Why do you think illegal immigration is so rampant, even our poorest citizens have it good compared to areas around the world, where people would literally die for the right to be part of the 99% in this country. The Occupy movement is a noble idea, but don't be hijacked by greed, and don't just go for being more wealthy as the goal of joining a movement, or of your life. I've seen firsthand the fact that money doesn't correlate to happiness, even in my life. I make more now than I have in my life, and have surpassed my parents in education and career opportunities, and while I am happy, it doesn't come from that, I was just as happy growing up on welfare in rent controlled housing, because my valuables in life aren't shiny baubles and green pieces of paper. We are getting close to the holiday season and it is time again to take account of what we do have in our lives and to be thankful for the riches we possess. If you want to focus on the economic disparity, go ahead, its your right, but its not going to change without major social upheaval, and even if you do manage to achieve your stated goal, whatever it may be, the truth will still remain that if you can read this from your phone or home computer, if you have the power to run electronics, no matter how old and slow, if you have a home to go back to, food on a regular enough basis you don't have to dumpster dive or beg then you are the 1%... "

.

Well the author certainly has a point (though to make one correction. The top 1% does not control 99% of the wealth of this nation. The majority of the wealth but not 99%). However the flaw in his argument is comparing the US economic conditions globally. I mean his comment are really a "Well thank you Captain Obvious!" argument. It's a least common denominator argument. What the author is stating, essentially, is; "Thank God you don't have nothing, like they do in Somalia!". Well fuck yea I'm thankful for that.

Be that as it may, his argument is still an argument from the bottom. I don't know about ya'll but I have no intentions of returning to some utopian agrarian life style as a village peasant. I like my upper middle class quasi-cosmopolitan and affluent life style and my father and grandfather and great grandfather worked their asses off to provide my generation with our current modern standard of living, quality of life and educational opportunities that made this all possible for me, my generation and future generations in this country.

I have worked my ass off to take advantage of the opportunities the previous generations have sacrificed and earned for me. All I ask in return for my hard work is a fair exchange of value for value for my productive work. I don't expect to have to work for pennies and live in poverty because of some political extremist ideologues moronic notion that what's good for some fucking plutocrat is what is good for me.

I'm not going to sit back and let some pig eat up all the pie. I'm going to fight for my fair share of a pie that I worked productively for and have earned as a fair and productive exchange of value for value.

Just as the social welfare state has no claim on my productive labors based on their needs, neither do the plutocrats or aristocrats have a claim on my productive labors as some sort of birth right, either. The top 1% didn't become fabulously wealthy in this nation in a vacuum. To succeed they have to rely on vast armies of skilled, hard working and productive individuals who contribute enormously to the creation of that wealth and to call those of us who fight for our fair share of that wealth "socialist" cause were not going to let an elite few have it all is just plain stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Well the author certainly has a point (though to make one correction. The top 1% does not control 99% of the wealth of this nation. The majority of the wealth but not 99%). However the flaw in his argument is comparing the US economic conditions globally. I mean his comment are really a "Well thank you Captain Obvious!" argument. It's a least common denominator argument. What the author is stating, essentially, is; "Thank God you don't have nothing, like they do in Somalia!". Well fuck yea I'm thankful for that.

Be that as it may, his argument is still an argument from the bottom. I don't know about ya'll but I have no intentions of returning to some utopian agrarian life style as a village peasant. I like my upper middle class quasi-cosmopolitan and affluent life style and my father and grandfather and great grandfather worked their asses off to provide my generation with our current modern standard of living, quality of life and educational opportunities that made this all possible for me, my generation and future generations in this country.

I have worked my ass off to take advantage of the opportunities the previous generations have sacrificed and earned for me. All I ask in return for my hard work is a fair exchange of value for value for my productive work. I don't expect to have to work for pennies and live in poverty because of some political extremist ideologues moronic notion that what's good for some fucking plutocrat is what is good for me.

I'm not going to sit back and let some pig eat up all the pie. I'm going to fight for my fair share of a pie that I worked productively for and have earned as a fair and productive exchange of value for value.

Just as the social welfare state has no claim on my productive labors neither do the plutocrats or aristocrats have a claim on my productive labors as some sort of birth right either. The top 1% didn't become fabulously wealthy in this nation in a vacuum. To succeed they have to rely on vast armies of skilled, hard working and productive individuals who contribute enormously to the creation of that wealth and to call those of us who fight for our fair share of that wealth "socialist" cause were not going to let an elite few have it all is just plain stupid.

Excellent post Mott!

 

[Bfgrn]

How about you trim back the bullshit and we discuss this like adult, m'kay? Can you manage to contain your insulting rhetoric long enough to do that?

Does that apply to only me?

QUOTE by WinterBorn: "Oh please spare me your desires to return to "Ozzie & Harriet" days."

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Excellent post Mott!

Thank you Darla. Give props to Winter....this is the first really interesting thread that's been started in quite a while.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't disagree w/ anything you wrote. But the bottom line is that the gap between the rich & poor is becoming a problem.

I'm surprised that it has become a right/left issue. Obama is about to break a record for campaign spending, with quite a bit coming from corporate "bundlers." People in the House spend a ridiculously disproportionate amount of their time fundraising. Important pieces of legislation are routinely co-written by corporate lobbyists.

People are kidding themselves if they think we still have a gov't by & for the people. It's all about the Benjamins now.

The thing is, if everyone goes up by 10% each year, the gap automatically widens. It has too. Unless we expect the most wealthy to earn less than we do.

That said, you are correct that there is an aristocracy that has developed. There is a very uncomfortable incestuous relationship between Wall Street, DC and the Ivy League (especially Harvard and Yale). In addition, there is that same 'boys club' mentality among the largest companies of the world in terms of executive leadership. It has become even more obnoxious over the last 15-20 years, which is why the pay structure is so out of whack. The players at each location may change, but they are simply swapping seats. Very similar to the NFL where we all wonder how coach 'x' keeps getting jobs in the NFL when they suck each and every time.

We need to break up this collective circle jerk. I am open for suggestions on how to do so.

 

[Onceler]

The thing is, if everyone goes up by 10% each year, the gap automatically widens. It has too. Unless we expect the most wealthy to earn less than we do.

That said, you are correct that there is an aristocracy that has developed. There is a very uncomfortable incestuous relationship between Wall Street, DC and the Ivy League (especially Harvard and Yale). In addition, there is that same 'boys club' mentality among the largest companies of the world in terms of executive leadership. It has become even more obnoxious over the last 15-20 years, which is why the pay structure is so out of whack. The players at each location may change, but they are simply swapping seats. Very similar to the NFL where we all wonder how coach 'x' keeps getting jobs in the NFL when they suck each and every time.

We need to break up this collective circle jerk. I am open for suggestions on how to do so.

I don't really have any ideas. And the biggest problem is that those on the lower and middle end aren't seeing a 10% increase; for the most part, those wages are stagnating. The rich truly do get richer.

I guess a start would be closing loopholes for them, which guys like Cantor call a "tax increase."

But really, the ultimate dilemma is the political one. I'm sure you know the history, but something like the saga of the prescription drug bill is probably just scratching the surface of what's to come. As time progresses, if no changes are made, the lines between corporate American & gov't will become less & less defined....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Just as the social welfare state has no claim on my productive labors based on their needs, neither do the plutocrats or aristocrats have a claim on my productive labors as some sort of birth right, either. The top 1% didn't become fabulously wealthy in this nation in a vacuum. To succeed they have to rely on vast armies of skilled, hard working and productive individuals who contribute enormously to the creation of that wealth and to call those of us who fight for our fair share of that wealth "socialist" cause were not going to let an elite few have it all is just plain stupid.

what that argument overlooks is that in any society, wealth itself is productive.......whether it be in the form of interest or dividends from financing corporate existence or providing raw materials and hiring labor, money does in fact generate more money.......and because of the cumulative factor it produces it at a higher rate than time alone.....

why do people offer their time digging ditches or filling in forms on a computer in exchange for $10 to $20 an hour?.....because they desire to accumulate enough of that money so they can have money working for them as well.....

if that was not a factor people would stop working as soon as they had paid for their daily food and shelter....

if no one was willing to to a job for $20 and the job needed doing, someone would offer $21.....and the price would go up until someone was willing to do it......the fact is, in today's world, we have people capable of doing the job who are willing to do it for $1.95......if we didn't companies would probably design a computer to do it for $3.50 before they paid someone to do it for $21.......

things aren't going to change until that equals out, maybe a decade or a generation in the future.....

the wallstreet occupiers aren't concerned about the bottom 99%, they are concerned about getting the top 1% of the top 1% to share with the bottom 99% of the top 1%.......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The thing is, if everyone goes up by 10% each year, the gap automatically widens. It has too. Unless we expect the most wealthy to earn less than we do.

That said, you are correct that there is an aristocracy that has developed. There is a very uncomfortable incestuous relationship between Wall Street, DC and the Ivy League (especially Harvard and Yale). In addition, there is that same 'boys club' mentality among the largest companies of the world in terms of executive leadership. It has become even more obnoxious over the last 15-20 years, which is why the pay structure is so out of whack. The players at each location may change, but they are simply swapping seats. Very similar to the NFL where we all wonder how coach 'x' keeps getting jobs in the NFL when they suck each and every time.

We need to break up this collective circle jerk. I am open for suggestions on how to do so.

Fragmentation grenades?

But seriously. In the past that is why we have had high tax rates on the very wealthy. Taxes like stiff inheritence taxes and high personal income taxes were meant to prevent these sort of incestious circle jerks, as you call them. Not that I'm advocating a return to a 70% top marginal rate. Just pointing out a historical fact.

You're observation is an interesting one though. I have a friend in the banking business who graduated with honors from PSU in finance and then obtained an executive MBA from Fischer College and works in downtown Cowtown as a manager in a local banks HQ. He told me about how when he applied for a Wall Street investment banking job that he was treated by them like pond scum because he hadn't attended an Ivy league school.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

what that argument overlooks is that in any society, wealth itself is productive.......whether it be in the form of interest or dividends from financing corporate existence or providing raw materials and hiring labor, money does in fact generate more money.......and because of the cumulative factor it produces it at a higher rate than time alone.....

why do people offer their time digging ditches or filling in forms on a computer in exchange for $10 to $20 an hour?.....because they desire to accumulate enough of that money so they can have money working for them as well.....

if that was not a factor people would stop working as soon as they had paid for their daily food and shelter....

if no one was willing to to a job for $20 and the job needed doing, someone would offer $21.....and the price would go up until someone was willing to do it......the fact is, in today's world, we have people capable of doing the job who are willing to do it for $1.95......if we didn't companies would probably design a computer to do it for $3.50 before they paid someone to do it for $21.......

things aren't going to change until that equals out, maybe a decade or a generation in the future.....

the wallstreet occupiers aren't concerned about the bottom 99%, they are concerned about getting the top 1% of the top 1% to share with the bottom 99% of the top 1%.......

I think that's an over simplication and that we should be careful not to demonize either side. I think what the Wall Street occupiers see is gross inequity and a failure of our judicial system to hold accountable those who placed our nation in it's current difficult sitation. In fact, they (and I) are appalled that many of those who were accountable for the debacle were not only not held accountable but were actually rewarded for their incompetant if not out right criminal behavior.

 

[The Dude]

I haven't heard anyone who's in the 1 percent lay out an argument that Clinton rates would hurt them.