Comments on Rich getting richer - high prices for everyone else.

Go to The decline & fall of the USA. - Add a comment - Go to Rich getting richer - high prices for everyone else.

and, thus...

...who the Republicans ultimately represent. That would be a wonderful day, Spy -- wise words from you, indeed.

posted by BrWiSk on March 11, 2004 at 2:09 PM | link to this | reply

Good observations.

Kat, thanks for your continued support I really appreciate it.

The reality is that we live in a class bound world and the USA itself is not (and never has been) a classless society.

The chief determinent as to which class you occupy is your wealth. If you are poor you don't have many  (if any) middleclass friends and if you are middleclass you don't have many (if any) friends who are rich.

The world is more divided by class than it is by nationalities or race or religion. A rich hindu will feel more comfortable and associate with a rich christian before they would deign to associate with a poor hindu and vice versa.

I don't think this can be changed but what must be changed is how the rich own and operate governments. If Kerry can collect enough money in small donations from middleclass people through the Internet or other means, it will demonstrate that the fatcats can be successfully opposed with money. Once that happens, it could change the way Republicans look at how they will raise money in the future.

posted by spyinthesky on March 11, 2004 at 1:14 PM | link to this | reply

typo

meant to type: "...and mercurial unless the quest to define "geographic footprint..."

posted by BrWiSk on March 11, 2004 at 8:59 AM | link to this | reply

Actually, there's more to this

Another extra state exists.

Unlike Saudi Arabia's, the 52nd state's geographic footprint is amorphous and mercurial the quest to define "geographic footprint" leads us to to a destination that says, "the entire planet." Multinational corporations, inextricably linked to Saudi Arabia's oil empire under myriad business contracts, wield great power over people. We, the people who don't make loads of money at the helm of Corporate America, try to operate our government. Corporate CEOs also are people. They operate a good deal of the government.

Technically, this arrangement, construed in a certain way, jives with the Constitution if we construe liberty a certain way. These days many in power draw conclusions from their construing that are at odds with the conclusions others draw after pondering considerations at odds with those in power.

Epiphany: Government may not beat this. Our only recourse may be to join the system and work, from within it, to persuade others within it to respect their power and everything else.

posted by BrWiSk on March 11, 2004 at 8:57 AM | link to this | reply

Worrywort

That same point in the logical progression always stymied too. Then I read what Spy had to say to you, and realized something: Saudi Arabia (and, to a lesser extent, much of the rest of the world) has become a United States constiuent nearly on par with one of our official states (e.g., New Hampshire, Colorado, etc.). But the citizens of Saudi Arabia don't get to vote on U.S. matters. We do.

The administration in the White House represents the votes of 51 states, Saudi Arabia being the extra state. That constituency comprises about five people, really, who don't want to see the earth wean itself off fossil fuels, show Janet Jackson's boobs on television, or have religious freedom.

George W. Bush is Saudi Arabia's president. Of course his administration doesn't give an S-H-I-T about the survival of the United States of America.

posted by BrWiSk on March 11, 2004 at 8:25 AM | link to this | reply

Worrywort -

It will give them a "Federal Emergency", and with the papers that Clinton signed during his terms, FEMA - the "Federal Emergency Management  Agency" has the authority to suspend the Constitution, and turn the country into a police state.  We'll have no more rights.

 --T99

posted by Tamara99 on March 11, 2004 at 7:34 AM | link to this | reply

Hello there, Spy. Great to see you back! Good post and wonderful writing, as always.

posted by PoetRaye on March 11, 2004 at 7:30 AM | link to this | reply

BrWisk & Worrywort

Both of you have interesting POVs on the price gouging greed of Big Oil.  I think Worry is right about them taking advantage while Bush & Cheney are in power because they fear it may end in November. I think BrWisk has a point with high prices reducing the use of fossil fuels.

The point to the destruction of government by the Repukes is to make it dysfunctional as it has essentially become under Bush & Cheney. The Repukes believe that even if these two criminals are removed from power (as they should be), the staggering debt and financial problems they will leave behind are so great that future governments will be hard pressed to stifle the predatory urges of Big Corporations, who will continue to profiteer by exploiting the people. They will also resist tax increases on the corporations (who are paying an average of 3.5% on their profits) or rich individuals and unless the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, they will have their way.

posted by spyinthesky on March 11, 2004 at 6:18 AM | link to this | reply

Kinda makes you wonder if the Oil companies and Oil cartel have figured their IN in the Whitehouse is about to be dethroned and they are taking undue advantage of us now, so that when the Dems get in office and they are forced to lower their prices, they will have made as much of a profit as they could. 

 

I read somewhere on the internet that the whole idea with the Repukes is, they WANT to bankrupt the Federal government.  That way no one will be upset or anything when they finally get rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Somehow this just doesn’t sound logical to me.  They [the rich, and Corporate America] are deliberately stabbing themselves in the eye by bankrupting us.  The states are all nearly bankrupt anyway.  So complete American meltdown will achieve what exactly?  What will that give them?

 

I just can’t figure it out.

 

Worrywort…………

posted by worrywort on March 11, 2004 at 12:18 AM | link to this | reply

I should have said...

"...OUR primary directive."

posted by BrWiSk on March 10, 2004 at 2:00 PM | link to this | reply

I'm abivalent about this one.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I invite price gouging. As much as you and I agree about the egregious goings-on at the White House, the effect of price gouging could lead to a decrease in the use of fossil fuels. That, of course, is the primary directive.

posted by BrWiSk on March 10, 2004 at 1:59 PM | link to this | reply