Comments on: Comments on 4793

Post number 4793

baylink — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:17:07 -0800

FLASH: Gore Concedes. Ok, I guess *now* it's over. Bye, Alec...

By: karmasalad

karmasalad — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:25:43 -0800

Well, having just listened to the speech, I thought it was well-conceived and spoken. From what I gather, the TV commentators on the various channels liked it as well. Any other thoughts?

By: waxpancake

waxpancake — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:27:04 -0800

I was kinda hoping Gore would endorse civil war.

By: karmasalad

karmasalad — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:29:17 -0800

Yeah, well, I actually think some sort of civil war/combat will take place in this nation, eventually. Our government is slowly faltering from corruption and misrepresentation. But that's another story entirely. :)

By: waxpancake

waxpancake — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:14:15 -0800

A Bush presidency can only serve to increase the widening gap between the rich and poor, which is already split along largely racial lines. Maybe Charlie's prediction of Helter Skelter will happen after all.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:24:13 -0800

Prediction: Bush will not be merely an ineffectual president, as some are saying (hoping?). This country will suffer tremendously under the coming administration.

By: likorish

likorish — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:32:15 -0800

Is it just me, or did Big Al look like he was about to burst into tears at any moment?

By: tiaka

tiaka — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:36:23 -0800

Right, I can see how Bush would 'to increase the widening gap between the rich and poor', seeing how he's a Fascist pig that endorses slavery and likes to whip his women before noon. It's not like Al Gore's best friend, Jesse Jackson rallies masses to rise up and overthrow everyone's that's not a Democrat. It's not like Al Gore told the, now infamous, 'richest 1%' lie 16 times just in the first debate. Nah, I hear he loves the poor, and hates the rich, he displays it by raising taxes on the poor. Well, that's not true, I lied, not unless you have solar panels or an electric cars. Right. I also hear he hates those rich Hollywood-folks, it seems they can't stop sending him money, after many requests to stop, they keep on harassing him with their nudity and violence and all, corrupting children. Yeah, it's sad.

By: tiaka

tiaka — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:40:45 -0800

Ohh, btw, where will Alec move? I was just thinking about this, best choice? Canada, 1-he'll save on the moving money, U-HAUL has this program where you can drop the truck in Canada, it's their one way thing. 2-they speak english. 3-since many of the cheaper original films for teeeveee are filmed in Canada, he won't have to travel every time.

By: capt.crackpipe

capt.crackpipe — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:43:19 -0800

Interesting use of scare quotes, tiaka. Are you trying to say that there isn't an increasing gap between the very rich and the middle class in America, or that Bush's tax cut would favor the rich disportionately more than the poor? So you know, both are true.

By: alan

alan — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:51:22 -0800

Stop bringing facts into the picture Capt.

By: lagado

lagado — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:02:24 -0800

I'll nominate that one for the Mefi Hall of Fame rant section

By: ethmar

ethmar — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:10:12 -0800

Hey, I won't have any trash talk about Bush. The man is a genius. He spoke from the heart tonight with his hand-written speech and reached out to all Americans. And since my attention span rivals that of a 3 year-old, I've pretty much put the last 5 weeks behind me and I'm ready to serve in whatever way the new administration sees fit.

By: tiaka

tiaka — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:12:37 -0800

No, and no. Read again. Bush's tax cut plan would favor everyone, including the rich. It's still better than no tax-relief whatsoever, to anyone. I'm not sure what you're proposing here, but, I doubt wealth distribution would work. And, at least Bush took the time to write his own speech.

By: Mick

Mick — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:47:24 -0800

Gore wrote his own speech, and did a damn fine job at it too.

By: tamim

tamim — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:18:02 -0800

Bush paid someone to write his speech, and did a fine job at it too.

By: tiaka

tiaka — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:21:17 -0800

Bush wrote his speech.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:47:03 -0800

How do you know, was it written in crayon or fingerpaint?

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:56:34 -0800

It's still better than no tax-relief whatsoever, to anyone. Wrong. Take a look at a little thing called the National Debt. Be responsible, not greedy.

By: rodii

rodii — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:56:46 -0800

Bush wrote his speech, and he almost managed to read it. I remember, weeks ago, thinking "thank god this campaign is almost over." That was before the post-election campaign. Then I thought, thank god now it's really almost over. But now it's the post-post-election-campaign campaign and I'm beginning to realize that it will NEVER be over. >sob<

By: capt.crackpipe

capt.crackpipe — Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:04:14 -0800

Matt: Funny. Okay, tiaka. This'll be fun. Show me some documents, economic theory, federal surveys on finance (hint) or other papers prooving that the rich are not growing richer while the poor and middle class (compartively) fall behind. Since the Great Depression the number of billionaires in this country averaged at 15. After Reagan got into office he changed the tax laws and the number of billionaires jumped to 49 in 1989. Forbes last survey, "It's Raining Billionaires" puts the number at over 200. There are more billionaires than ever before, but wealth among every single economic class below the richest 5% stagnates. The Left Business Observer tracks this subject very closely. (Note the first graph on that page is adjusted for inflation, so it accurately portrays buying power for each year.) The rich have never been richer, while buying power for 240 million Americans has stagnated since 1967. On the subject of stock and asset ownership he writes, "The much-touted 'democratization of ownership' is largely invisible in the stats — unless you think of a slight fall in the richest 1%'s share of total wealth and a slight rise in the next 9%'s share a triumph of democracy. The bottom 90% of the population claimed its smallest share of wealth on record, well below the richest 1%'s share." Perhaps, tiaka, when you ironically mentioned the widening wealth gap, you were referring to the richest 9%? The LBO gets most of its stats from the FED. You "doubt wealth distribution would work". What you meant was, wealth re-distribution. It works great for the super-rich. They've seen their networth rise nearly 50% in ten years at the cost of 95% of Americans, whose networth hasn't gone anywhere. As for Bush's tax plan, the Citizens for Tax Justice wrote "New $1.9 Trillion Plan Tilts Even More to Very Top." Gary Klott quotes them in a column in which he writes, "Close scrutiny shows the plan's costs are greater than advertised and that higher-income groups would receive a disproportionate share of the benefits." Klott also points out that when people say "favors the rich over the poor" they mean the rich get more money back than the poor. This is a fact that cannot be debated. In terms of wealth creation the poor's refund check is a tiny fraction of the rich's, and therefore a fraction as useful. The poor benefit the most from government services, and as the tax base dries up those services dwindle. If you take into account wealth re-distribution going to the richest 5%, you can see that government programs are the only way to create a democratic economy. Economic power (wealth) is equal to political power. History shows only the rich benefit from a grossly stratified economy. Please, read on, my friend. Read on.

By: holgate

holgate — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:30:21 -0800

It's an odd irony that the "liberal" governments in the UK and US, in recent years, have lived up to their tax-and-spend credentials by, um, keeping a balanced budget, controlling inflation and paying off the national debt, while "conservative" governments, representing the moneyed interests, have managed to create inflationary boom-and-busts, so that the recipients of tax cuts find their apparent gains eaten away by rising prices and mortgage rates. Ahem.

By: cCranium

cCranium — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 06:47:19 -0800

holgate: you can include Canada in that liberals straightening out conservative messes bit.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:23:14 -0800

I'm sorry, I'd rather go on being lower-lower-middle class than take money I have no right to by way of the government. (Translate: Bush's tax cut is only 'unfair' if you believe wealth should be distributed evenly in the first place. Which I don't.)

By: tiaka

tiaka — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:37:09 -0800

I didn't say I didn't think that there's a widening gap between richer and poorer. It's always been there, but, I enjoyed reading the stuff : ) "History shows only the rich benefit from a grossly stratified economy." Ok.

By: MattD

MattD — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:26:09 -0800

The US is the single place that all the poor throughout the world want to come to: the place where it is better to be poor, and easier to stop being poor, than anywhere else in the history of the world. (Maybe a few European welfare states afford the poor a somewhat softer life, but they've also made upward mobility and access to immigrants almost impossible.) While we do have important issues to work on -- in particular, access to regular health care for the non-professional, non-union working class -- the mixture of opportunity and accountability in the US cannot be beat. To the extent that there are deep and seemingly intractable problems for the poor, they largely arise from underclass pathologies that only they can excise through a "great awakening" of moral and religious consciousness, with which the government really cannot assist.

By: baylink

baylink — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:35:31 -0800

And you know? I lied. We won't know *for sure* that no electors went off the patch until 4 January. Moo-ha-ha-ha...

By: tiaka

tiaka — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:49:47 -0800

Btw, you still haven't adressed where Alec should move to.

By: Markb

Markb — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:57:48 -0800

MattD, I can only speak for Nepalis (being the only developing country I've visited recently) but the desire to reach America has nothing to do with the American dream. I has everything to do with the image of Americans as the richest race on earth. For years Nepalis have had trekkers and travellers from Europe and Australia visiting their country, usually on a tight budget - most Nepalis I know have no desire to be like them, skinny and badly dressed. In recent years there has been a new type of tourist (Nepalis call them window tourists), Mainly American and Japanese, middle aged and staying in the type of hotel 'resort' where you can't actually tell when inside which country it is you're staying. These tourists are well dressed (shirts and ties and HUGE cameras) and are quite willing to spend large amounts of money for 'local' souvenirs (usually made in a factory in India). You may now drift back on topic.

By: will

will — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:10:15 -0800

"The US is the single place that all the poor throughout the world want to come to: the place where it is better to be poor, and easier to stop being poor, than anywhere else in the history of the world." only an arrogant american could write something like that...

By: solistrato

solistrato — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:47:31 -0800

Hey, what about Robert Altman? Didn't he say he was going to move as well? Will we be free of him too? Please say yes.

By: daveadams

daveadams — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:23:27 -0800

It's an odd irony that the "liberal" governments in the UK and US, in recent years, have lived up to their tax-and-spend credentials by, um, keeping a balanced budget, controlling inflation and paying off the national debt Er, the US government has not been "liberal" since 1994. The Republican-controlled Congress (conservative) and the Democratic president (possibly liberal, depending on who you ask) have managed to work well together (whether they thought they were doing it or not) to let the economy prosper by not being so active. Gridlock is gooood.

By: capt.crackpipe

capt.crackpipe — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:41:10 -0800

Tiaka, thanks for reading my post, but I don't think you understood the import of it. If the super-rich gather more wealth, while the poor and middle class simply don't, a vast injustice is created. The rich will always have more economic and political power than the rest of society, but it is government's duty to keep standard-of-living and wages to at least rise with inflation. Pay for everyone except the rich (those making over ~$150,000/year) hasn't changed since the sixties. Your buying power, in real money is ~$2 less than it was twenty years, ago. Not so for the rich, though, because their pay has skyrocketed. We are standing still, as politicians represent only the richest of the rich, while the rich take over our government. This is fuedalism. MattD: I am fucking tired of the nationalist excuse that since America is such a great country, we should shut our mouths. That is un-American as it is lazy. It is because America is such a great country that I want to make it better.

By: holgate

holgate — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:45:08 -0800

MattD: you obviously haven't tried to emigrate to the US recently.

By: Mick

Mick — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:54:32 -0800

Pay for everyone except the rich (those making over ~$150,000/year) hasn't changed since the sixties. Your buying power, in real money is ~$2 less than it was twenty years, ago. Not so for the rich, though, because their pay has skyrocketed. "The illusion of income stagnation comes from the fact that two people in a household today earn not much more than three people earned a generation ago. That is still a hefty 50 percent rise in real per capita income -- which may be why more people can now afford to go live in their own households."

By: capt.crackpipe

capt.crackpipe — Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:07:15 -0800

A generation ago meaning "pre-Depression." I'm sure wages rose quite a bit during the New Deal, but when averaged after that, it stagnates.