News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Goldman Sachs vice chair: "Public must learn to 'tolerate the inequality' of bonuses"

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 10:15:00 AM EDT


Oh, the humility!!! Sackcloth and ashes for everyone else! An unbelievable class warfare quote of the day.
One of the City's leading figures has suggested that inequality created by bankers' huge salaries is a price worth paying for greater prosperity.

In remarks that will fuel the row around excessive pay, Lord Griffiths, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said banks should not be ashamed of rewarding their staff.

Speaking to an audience at St Paul's Cathedral in London about morality in the marketplace last night, Griffiths said the British public should "tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all".

He added that he knew what inequality felt like after spending his childhood in a mining town in Wales. Both his grandfathers were miners who had to retire from work through injury.

With public anger mounting at the forecast of bumper bonuses for bankers only a year after the industry was rescued by the taxpayer, he said bankers' bonuses should be seen as part of a longer-term investment in Britain's economy. "I believe that we should be thinking about the medium-term common good, not the short-term common good ... We should not, therefore, be ashamed of offering compensation in an internationally competitive market which ensures the bank businesses here and employs British people," he said.

I had to catch my breath after reading that headline. So let's see, paying people 400 times the average worker is going to make the company more successful? Is the brain power of the CEO so irreplaceable, so precious and uniquely powerful that it deserves that level of compensation -- EVEN WHEN YOU RUN YOUR COMPANY INTO THE SH*TTER?! That's what this is about. The people who are getting laid off and losing their health insurance, losing their homes, didn't make the decisions some of these overcompensated thieves at the top of the food chain made when it was clear loans were being made to people with no documented income, traded around like musical chairs and the American people were left at then end without a chair when the music stopped. And then the CEOs wanted government largesse to save it. Welfare, as it were.

Good god, this is probably the most disastrous bit of PR that a high ranking exec has uttered in a long while. Although I do have to say that it's pretty hard to top Joe Solmonese's epic FAIL when asked by CNN's Don Lemon about the diversity at the HRC dinner and, well, who the serious informed people are.

[P]erhaps the crowd at the dinner last night was a little bit more politically aware and had a better sense of maybe, you know, what's at stake and what needs to be done.
These kind of craptacular statements appear to stem from either a lack of media training or, well, um, synapse misfiring and complete tunnelvision about what other message might be conveyed with that statement. Of course Lord Griffiths probably didn't give a flying fig what you little people think anyway.

UPDATE: Two must-sees from GRITtv that addresses Lord Griffiths bullshite quite nicely. First, Laura Flanders on the Worst Foreclosure Quarter Yet and Still no Stick for Banks?

Bankers might be back to making, as one fundraiser noted in the Times piece, $1 million to $200 million a year, but hundreds of thousands of Americans are still fighting foreclosure around the country and the administration is busy fundraising.

We talk to Sarah Ludwig, co-director of the Neighborhood Economic Development and Advocacy Project; Nomi Prins, author of It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street and senior fellow at Demos; Jennifer Gonnerman, New York Magazine contributor and award-winner writer of "The Last House Standing" and Heather Booth, veteran grassroots organizer of 40 years, now serving as executive director of the new coalition, Americans for Financial Reform. They tell us what’s really going on in the rest of America, the ones who aren’t invited to fancy fundraisers.

Below the fold, a clip from a documentary on poverty.

Pam Spaulding :: Goldman Sachs vice chair: "Public must learn to 'tolerate the inequality' of bonuses"
GRITtv also has an excellent promo of a documentary, "The End of Poverty?"
Coming to theaters in November, The End of Poverty? takes a look at what really causes poverty (hint: it's not people being lazy). The role of the financial system-the same one that our government just bailed out to the tune of several billion dollars-in keeping the world's poorest people poor is exposed in detail in this haunting film directed by Phillippe Diaz and narrated by Martin Sheen.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I have one word for him. Guillotine. n/t


This was his...
"Let them eat cake" moment.

More importantly though, his assesment is completely WRONG.

I will never understand why these idiots STILL do not get that the best thing for their businesses is NOT higher paid executives, but higher paid workers.

It just pisses me off that they are determined to overlook the fact that spreading the wealth around to the people most likely to be customers is what generates business.

If all executives took substantial pay cuts and then gave their employees significant raises, the economy would bounce back immediately.

As it stands, the reason the recovery is so anemic is because companies are laying off workers...you know their customer base.

Rich people do not spend most of their money. In fact they tend to sit on it, or spend it on a small number of high priced items. Workers will pay off bills (fixing the banking problem) and buy needed goods and services (customers). Its workers that allow the econoomy to function, yet these are the same people that the executive class routinely ensure theit their ability to participate in the economy is extremely limited.


It's about relative power.
I will never understand why these idiots STILL do not get that the best thing for their businesses is NOT higher paid executives, but higher paid workers.

While it's true that the rich could get even richer if there were a prosperous middle class, it's not about getting richer. They already have all the money they could ever dream of spending.

It's all about relative power. If the middle class in the U.S. is impoverished, the power of the rich in relation to the rest of the country becomes that much greater.

Their goal is nothing less than maximum power.


[ Parent ]
Sci Fi Geek, how dare you pretend to be a friend of working people!
Who do you think you're kidding when you say "the best thing for their businesses is NOT higher paid executives, but higher paid workers".

You support Obama, a union buster who's just as bad, if not worse than Clinton or Bush at going after unions. Obama forced the UAW to accept the worst contract they've signed since 1945. They lost it all - wages, health care, seniority rights and even more jobs outsourced to scab companies. Obama refuses to support socialized medicine and even thinks that the watered down worthless 'public option' is expendable.

Obama is keeping the troops in Iraq to prevent the Iraqi oil unions from having a veto over the US attempt to steal their oil.  

Obama is as hostile to the rights of unions and working people as he is to GLBT folks - and so are those who support him.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
Also, guess who has opposed most strongly
repeatedly at various G20 meetings, coordinated international efforts to place restrictions on Goldman Sachs etc?

Yes, Obama.


[ Parent ]
I wonder if that's the same Goldman Sachs who contributed $994,795.00 to Obama.
Yep

Obama is a lap dog of the rich and bigoted. He and his party are in bed with Haliburton, the banks, Rick Warren and the military-industrial complex. And he opposes socialized medicine. Next time you hear of someone dying because they lacked adequate care remember Obama and his super majority in Congress.  

He doesn't give a rat's ass about the lives of GI's, civilians from Palestine to Pakistan or working people in this country.

The Republicans are just as bad.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
That may be true...
...but the Republicans are willing accomplices who see nothing wrong with exploiting or breaking the rules to get ahead.

The Dems at least have the possibility of being shown the error of their ways; they do what they do more because they've been duped into believing it really does help people.


[ Parent ]
The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats.
To be accurate you have to be clear eyed about the two parties, the two party system and the government they run. Both parties are nothing more than competing gangs of sellout hustlers (assuming they had any principles to sell out) who are vying for the best place at the trough. They're creatures of the sty.  

They are our enemies and neither party can be reformed. The idea that either will do anything except in response to mass action campaigns by unions, LGBT folks or the antiwar movement is an illusion.

We survived Bush by losing our illusions and we'll have to lose our illusions about Obama to survive his administration.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
Not exactly.
They have some agenda items in common, but I'd much rather deal with the Dems than the Reps. I have no illusions that all problems will be solved if we keep the Dems in charge, but things will still be a hell of a lot better than if the Reps regain power.

It's a bit like good-cop/bad-cop; they both want the same thing, but I'd still rather deal with the "good" cop's abstract threats than the "bad" cop's destructive behavior.

When the Reps are in power, we have to fight for basic decency and integrity. When the Dems are in power, we can start talking about things like Wall Street owning Congress and stopping US torture.

However, that should be so obvious that I don't even know why I'm pointing it out, and I suspect you are really just trolling. Go on, tell me Obama is as bad as Bush overall.


[ Parent ]
Obviously, you're in denial. And very, very confused.

The agenda items they have in common are fleecing working people to enrich the obscene rich, support for the murder of civilians from Palestine to Pakistan in order to steal oil, a cavalier attitude towards the lives of GI's, the retention of Bill Clintons DADT and DOMA, an escalation of union busting and attacks on civil liberties.

They appear to differ on stem cell research and very sharply indeed on whom to invite to the annual Easter egg hunt.

It makes no difference to me or any one else whither you prefer being abused by a mean cop or a sweet taking cop as long as you don't try to include the rest of us in your foolishness. If you like that sort of stuff go for it but leave the rest of us out of it.

On the war Obama is as bad as Bush overall. They're equally bad on civil liberties, operating concentration camps, and kidnap murder, or rendition as they like to call it. Overall Obama is worse for Afghan, Palestinian and Pakistani civilians. Overall Clinton and Obama have been worse in terms of attacks on the standard of living of working people and on unions because they can get away with more.

Clinton, Bush and now Obama are the latest versions of the lesser evil scam and falling for that is not very bright, especially after Obama torpedoed our chances to retain same sex marriage with 'gawd's in the mix.'

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
What are the results of the talk?
You can talk as much as you want about Wall Street owning Congress while supporting Obama, while denying that Wall Street owns Obama. You can rant till you're blue in the face about Griffiths while supporting Obama. Nothing changes. Wall Street still owns Obama. Obama continues to fight any and all attempts to restrict Wall Street.

As for torture, Guantanamo is still open. Obama has blocked every attempt by organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, to find out about what is happening at Bagram, which is being EXPANDED.

All this stuff is basic, so obvious that only naive and willfully blind Obama supporters don't know about them.



[ Parent ]
Denial?
donal1944 and rfloh:

Look, you have some valid points to make, but you're clouding them with falsehoods and equivocations.

If the looters like working with Dems so much more, then why do we get more looting during Rep administrations?

Obama at least pays some attention to human rights issues (rather than actively mocking them as Bush did), and isn't overtly trying to destroy democracy (as Bush did) and generally ignore objective reality (as Bush did).

What, exactly, did Clinton and Obama do that was bad for working people -- aside from Obama being duped by Wall Street in the current crisis (which was allowed to happen by which administration, again)? How can you say Obama is worse on the subject of wars when he is at least pushing in the direction of moving out, reducing forces (or hesitating to expand them, despite military wishes), closing Gitmo?

I do think it's very wrong that he's not Just Saying No to using torture, and I think again he may have been taken in by the Mil-Ind Way -- but Bush, and Reps in general, are far, far worse. (Under which administration did we start with the torturing, the war, the detainments? Who passed the Military Commissions Act, the horrendous Patriot Act? Who created the Orwellian "Department of Homeland Security"? ...and this is just the tip of the Bush.)

I have extreme difficulty believing that you honestly don't see the difference. Are you sure you're not both Republican trolls?

However, arguing about which party is "better" does distract from the fact that they both are arguably the puppets of the oligarchy -- I'm pretty much in agreement with you there -- and that this is a problem we can't afford to ignore.

But dagnabbit, you can't go and say that Obama (and a Dem Congress) isn't miles better than the alternative.


[ Parent ]
I never said that there's no difference between Obama and Bush
Yes, there's a difference. The issue is how much that difference matters.

Obama at least pays some attention to human rights issues (rather than actively mocking them as Bush did), and isn't overtly trying to destroy democracy (as Bush did) and generally ignore objective reality (as Bush did).

I do think it's very wrong that he's not Just Saying No to using torture, and I think again he may have been taken in by the Mil-Ind Way -- but Bush, and Reps in general, are far, far worse. (Under which administration did we start with the torturing, the war, the detainments? Who passed the Military Commissions Act, the horrendous Patriot Act? Who created the Orwellian "Department of Homeland Security"? ...and this is just the tip of the Bush.)

Homeland Security is Orwellian. So, Obama has closed it down? Good for him.

The Patriot Act is horrendous. So you're telling me that it has been repealed? Good to know.

It is nice to know that Obama is such a champion of civil liberties and human rights.

Ahem.

Talk to me about how Obama opposes the kidnapping and torture of people when Obama starts answering the questions that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have raised about Bagram, instead of blocking every attempt to find out what is going on there.

Obama pays attention to human rights when it suits him. Obama talks about human rights in Iran, Obama lectures Iran on human rights. What about Israel and Gaza? What about the regimes of Egpyt, Pakistan, Tunisia that are allied to the US and propped up by the US? What has Obama said about the Goldstone report, hmm? What about the human rights of the women and children in Afghanistan that are bombed to bits of bloody meat by drones?

Obama's "attention" to human rights is JUST AS BAD as Bush's. By selectively applying human rights standards only when it suits him, Obama has made a mockery of the concept of human rights. Obama, and the cruise missile liberals who support him have rendered the concept of human rights utterly meaningless. Human rights and women's rights become utterly meaningless concepts if you're bombing women and children to bits of bloody meat or if you support an ally that bombs women and children to bits of bloody meat.

Human rights are either universal, and not just for people you like, or the entire concept of human rights is a sham.

What, exactly, did Clinton and Obama do that was bad for working people -- aside from Obama being duped by Wall Street in the current crisis (which was allowed to happen by which administration, again)?

How was Obama "duped"? But nevermind, let's accept your argument that he was duped. That makes him incompetent instead of malicious.

And BTW, you might look up something called "Glass Steagall" . If you do, you might note that it wasn't the Evil Bush the Younger who was responsible for repealing it. It happened under Bill Clinton. Trying to lay the entire blame on Bush for the current banking crash is at best extremely ignorant. No matter how much Democrats want to pretend, they bought into the Chicago School Free Market Uber Alles theories too.

What has Obama done that is bad for working people you ask? Give trillions to the banks such as Goldman Sachs without any strings attached. The money that the US has given to the banks far exceeds to total amount of all the bad mortgages. I suppose you agree with Lord Griffiths' arguments?

Repeatedly fight vigorously, and successfully scupper, any international attempts to restrict the banks legally.

What has Obama done that is bad for working people you ask? Obama loves charter schools for the working people, but of course, not for his two precious little princesses. While his administration champions charter schools to "reform" public education, Princess Sasha and Princess Malia must of course attend one of the most exclusive private schools in Washington. The very idea of their Royal Highnesses Princess Sasha and Princess Malia attending a charter school is abominable.

Obama has loads of money for the banks, Obama has loads of money to fund the military, but no money for universal public health. Hell, forget universal public health, he doesn't seem to even really support the "public option
" concept.

...and do you seriously think a Republican would be less in the pocket of Wall Street?

Seriously??

Ah the smell of a burning Strawman in the morning. Slaughtering and burning Strawmen is fun, but maybe you might want to explain to me why Obama has repeatedly opposed various internatioal attempts, at various G20 meetings, to restrict the banks.

I have extreme difficulty believing that you honestly don't see the difference. Are you sure you're not both Republican trolls?

So, anyone who points out the flaws in Obama is a troll?

The problem with your analysis is you are stuck in a Dem or Repub rut. If someone criticises Obama, s/he is a Republican troll, just like how to Republicans, anyone who criticises them is immediately a Democrat.

Obama is better than Bush, yes. The issue is how much that difference matters.


[ Parent ]
Agree
...with your summary, anyway. It does matter, and what we've got is better than what we had, but that's no reason to be content with what we've got.

[ Parent ]
I do believe that it does matter too
Somewhat at least.

For example, Obama's approach to relations with Russia, and Iran, is more sane than that of Bush. He isn't trying to provoke and poke at Russia the way Bush did. His approach to Iran appears to be to try to combine negotiations and threats, carrot and stick, unlike Bush.

His attitude towards LGBT issues, is an improvement on that of Bush.


[ Parent ]
wozzle, if you're not in denial then your questions make me wonder if you've been in a coma since 1994.
You ask "What, exactly, did Clinton and Obama do that was bad for working people..."

NAFTA  1994  It was a major attack on the standard of living of working people in Mexico, the US and Canada and part of an effort to bust unions in all three countries. For Mexcio and parts of the US it led to environmental disasters and pauperization of working people. NAFTA was championed by Bill Clinton and passed the House with a majority of majority of 234, with 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting for it.

WELFARE CUTS - 1996 At the same time, to force people into low paying jobs that barely pay enough to live on but make bosses richer, much richer, Clinton championed draconian welfare cuts.

DEREGULATION 1999 Clinton champions and then signs the bipartisan Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, repealing legislation from the Depression era, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, and letting predatory looters loose to steal obscene fortunes by bilking working people. The GLBA, which Wall Street demanded in no uncertain terms, passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both Houses on November 4th, 1999 by a Senate vote of 90-8 and in the House by 362-57 and promptly signed into law by Clinton, a disgusting lap dog of the rich well paid for selling us down the river.

Of course, Clinton denied that he was a handpuppet of the rich and that his championing of deregulation had anything to do with the fact that there are currently 15 million (and counting) working people who's lives are being ruined by unemployment, and who are losing their homes and committing suicide in unprecedented number. "Former President Bill Clinton says deregulation of financial institutions is not to blame for the mortgage market mess."

Contrast Clinton's 'heroism' standing up for the rich (which, combined with last minute bribes for pardons made him a multi-multi millionaire) to his chickenshit cowardice on GLBT issues, beginning with DADT and DOMA,  two of the most bigoted laws to come down the pike since Congress ended reconstruction.

And you ask "Under which administration did we start with the torturing, the war, the detainments? " Don't be dense. It began under Bush 1 and was deepened under Clinton, who began rendition and ordered the death of about half a million Iraqi children when he embargoed food, medicine and sanitary supplies. It was mass murder worse than Hiroshima andNagasaki combined. Didn't you notice?  

Wozzle, if you're a little wobbly on history you can begin to catch up by reading We Forget What It Was Really Like Under the Clintons by David Morris at AlterNet. Here's a taste: "NAFTA failures; deregulation of banking and ENRON's rise; "Welfare Reform" that led to more poor people. This and more is what the Clintons gave us."

Please, let me know why you think busting the UAW contract is not an attack on working people and being a lap dog for the rich. Bush never got away with it but Obama could because, as the saying goes, you can fool some people all the time. If you need a history lesson on Obama's sins so far check out this article in the Black Agenda Report.

And please, when did I lie? Or equivocate (are you sure that's the word you want to use or were you just looking for something with lots of syllables)?  In any case trolling and lying are the usual charges that Democrats and liberals make up to cover their cluelessness. Try to keep it political, wozzle and lose the personal BS. Try to prove what you say or don't say it. Making baseless charges and baseless statements doesn't do a thing because people see through it.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
Detailed response, squeezed into an ever-narrower column...
By "equivocation", I meant claiming that two very different things with some similar attributes were essentially the same thing -- i.e. claiming or implying that Obama was no better than Bush.

Your criticisms of Clinton highlight this fact: in every one of them, his crime was giving in to Republican wishes.

According to the first link, this was at least in part because of popular support for the bill in question; I don't know if it's fair to say he "championed" it, given that.

In the second link, it looks to me like he was trying to solve a problem which at that time was not widely discussed -- the tremendous pressure to show short-term profits, at the expense of long-term stability -- and was perhaps misled by corporate interests into taking the wrong action towards that end; I do not see someone knowingly defending corporate profits at the expense of the public interest.

The third link -- "We forget what life was really like under the Clintons" -- who's we? I remember pretty clearly.

Under Clinton my life sucked economically, but this was mostly not anything to do with public policy (except for the 1991 recession, which obviously wasn't Clinton's fault). I liked most of what [I heard about that] he did, and it's pretty clear that he was miles better than the Bushes preceding and following.

I agree that his actions regarding the telecomms are highly questionable; media consolidation may be the single biggest threat we face today, because it allows near-centralized control of our national consensus. The article doesn't even mention the DMCA, which is also evil.

This still doesn't show that he was acting out of self-interest. What I see is someone listening to points of view all across the political spectrum, and coming to a set of decisions which turned out to be quite wrong.

Contrast with Bush II, who made a point of only listening to his inner circle and actively suppressing all dissent. Which methodology do you think is more likely to result in deep corruption and no-good, terrible, very bad decisionmaking? Which methodology reflects a desire to make the best decisions for the good of the nation, versus enriching a select few who can buy access to "the decider"?

More to the point, though, deregulation is a chronic Republican solution to everything. You seem to be arguing that Clinton's conceding significant ground to the Republicans shows that he is no better than they are. Given the positive things he did when he wasn't giving in to pressure -- and which no Republican would be caught dead doing -- I can't see how this accusation makes any sense.

Yes, Clinton has a lot to answer for -- but portraying him as innately corrupt and greedy simply does not match the evidence.

And on the fourth point, criticism of Obama...

I'm beginning to wonder if we're arguing past each other. My thesis is this: Obama is not our savior, but he is still miles better than the awfulness that was Bush.

Yes, I agree that corporate control of the White House and Congress is a huge problem; I just don't think Obama or Clinton realize the extent to which they are being manipulated, while the GOP embraces it enthusiastically as The American Way (capitalism, you know).

Show me a candidate of demonstrably higher integrity than Obama and you'll have my vote, but as it is I think we're damn lucky to have someone of Obama's calibre pushing even half-heartedly in the right direction. Someone less willing to "compromise" (and be manipulated) would probably never make it it to the primaries, and that's the way it will be until we reform the system -- which is where we should be focusing our efforts.


[ Parent ]
Incredible! You still defend Clinton and Obama.
Clinton publically championed, fought for, strong armed Congress and drummed up support for and then signed DADT and DOMA, NAFTA and deregulation of banks. There are no excuses for that. 15 million (and counting) working people are unemployed because of his policies, amplified and enlarged by both Bush and Obama. Your defense that he did it because of "the tremendous pressure to show short-term profits, at the expense of long-term stability" is exactly right and proves my point beyond a doubt.

But who, what class, applied the pressure to cut welfare and social services, to export union jobs utilizing NAFTA and to unleash corporate looter on us. And to pass DADT and DOMA?

Was it working people? Unions? Environmentalists? Consumer advocates?  LGBT groups? No, it was the predatory rich and the bigots. That proves my point that he pandered to cult bigots and the looter class and got rich feeding their insatiable greed.  

And please, don't insult us by claiming that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar and one of the sleaziest, sharpest husters to make it to the White House was 'misled' by corporate interests. He sold us out and everybody but you and a few other Democrats knows that for a fact. That's how he got his millions.  

By extension, what do his actions accepting bribes by the bushelfull in return for last minute pardons prove? That there was "tremendous pressure" from the drug cartels and he had to find a way to deal with it?

Bill Clinton instituted a terrorist policy that killed half a million Iraqi children and began the policy of kidnapping, torturing and murdering political and military opponents. Do you deny it? Where was the mass pressure to kill children? What excuse will you come up with for a crime worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

It hardly matters whether Republicans or Democrats originated the bills. They were bipartisan bills and all passed with large majorities from both parties (except for DADT, which many Republicans thought wasn't mean spirited enough). Clinton pulled the rug out from under working people using draconian cuts in social services and welfare. Bush 2 used Clintons deregulation to make the rich richer just as Reagan used Carter's deregulation of S&Ls to do the same. But that doesn't exonerate Carter or Clinton or the Democrats in Congress who went along with it to enrich themselves.

The two parties are far more alike than they are different.  

Bill Clinton was Margaret Thatcher in drag.

Trying to lay most of the blame for the wars and occupations, for attacks on unions and the standard of living of working people and for anti-GLBT bigotry on Republicans while ignoring the bipartisan support those measures have from Democrats is factually wrong. It's a political trap meant to perpetuate an economic and political system that needs to be fundamentally changed.

Reforms won't cut it. They've been tried. They don't work. Mass actions, like the recent mass anti-Obama rally in DC called the National Equality March do work. The policies of both Bushes, Clinton and Obama are the same in terms of their pigheaded support for the wars and occupations, attacks on unions and working people and determination not to repeal Clintons DADT and DOMA. They don't work for us, they work for the rich.  

The system will break before they allow it to be reformed. If elections made a difference they'd be outlawed. This is, after all, the biggest banana republic of them all.

As for Obama, you think he's somehow superior to Bush. He's not. He's Bushlite.

Democrats are Republicans in drag.  

And finally, you forgot to answer my question. When did I lie? When did I play the troll? Was I trolling during the election when I and others on the left predicted that that Obama would betray us? That he'd run us over with his Obus every chance he got? That he'd enlarge the wars and occupations? That he was a tool of the rich? Because now, after the fact, lots of other people agree with the left about that. Are they all trolls? Is criticism of Obama trolling? Or is it slinging mud because you couldn't win an argument if your life depended on it?

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
Obama is not Bush, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with him
You don't give any evidence for your claims that Clinton and Obama actually pushed for the causes you mention, and you ignore my arguments that they were/are in fact strong-armed and/or manipulated into signing off on them.

I only suspected you of being a troll because your claims seemed so completely opposite my understanding of the situation. Calling Obama a Bushite, for example -- yes, he is clearly continuing the Bush doctrine in some ways, but I'm pretty sure that if we had a Republican in office (McCain, for example) things would be much, much worse. A Democratic president at least knows he is going against his constituents' wishes in continuing Bush policies; a Republican would have no such constraints.

It's kind of stupid that we're arguing about this when I agree with most of what you're saying.

Maybe we can find some common ground if I say this: I would never advocate letting up on Obama when he does the wrong thing. Criticize! Condemn! He doesn't get a free pass just because he's Mr. Not Bush.

(and I'll stop there, because anything more I say will probably just set you off and I'll be repeating myself anyway)


[ Parent ]
Yeah, given Goldman's financial contributions to Obama
and given that Obama has been in the vanguard fighting for Goldman against international restrictions on banks, people should be ranting and railing against Obama. Anyone who continues to support Obama while railing against Griffiths is being naive at best.

[ Parent ]
See my reply above...
Wall Street isn't the only issue, and there are many, many reasons to support Obama over a potential Republican challenger.

...and do you seriously think a Republican would be less in the pocket of Wall Street?

Seriously??


[ Parent ]
In-f'in-credible
At least he came out and said it.  No beating around the bush for him.  I feel that most classist people, like most racist people, are careful to avoid saying what they really mean.  Not this guy.

New Rule
If 'Lord' is part of your name other than your surname you are hereby prohibited from telling anyone who works for a living what sort of economic inequality they have to 'tolerate.'

I am glad that someone else invoked the image of the guillotine; I didn't want to commit a violation of Godwin's French Law - but I'm not sure it actually is.  In all seriousness - and truly, truly NOT advocating any violence - if there was a revolution against the obscene wealth class, this character, and those like him, would truly not understand why.  They really don't believe that we have anything to complain about.

BTW - who was it that 'Lord' is with? Goldman Sachs?  Or the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation?

>^..^<


"Lord" "Dame" and the various titles
are nowadays in many cases simply titles awarded by the British government for (perceived) service to Britain in various fields of life. They aren't necessarily hereditary.

Griffths is correct. The public needs to learn to tolerate the inequality. The politicians that people are voting for are doing nothing to restrict the behaviour of people like Griffiths. As long people keep electing these politicians, well they need to learn to accept the inequality.


[ Parent ]
"They aren't necessarily hereditary."
I'm aware - but the concept is still offensive to real people.

Based on what he said about his upbringing, I presume he's a life peer, not a hereditary peer - which, as I understand it, makes him more dangerous via actually having a vote in the House of Lords.

>^..^<


[ Parent ]
Lord "DUMB F^CK" Griffiths, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs International
This fat white overpaid, overstuffed sack of sh^t needs to stay out of the United States.  We dumped peerage and preferential treatment by birth.  Maybe he and his cousin-boinking Brits buy into the royalty and peerage crap . . . but we don't!
NOTHING this windbag has to say is worth the "great bank heist" compensation that he has been stealing.
All these inflated compensation packages come STRAIGHT OUT OF THE WALLETS OF THE POOR AND WORKING CLASS.
These executive are not paid . . . they are shameless thieves who are aided and abetted by their boards, their upper level subordinates and greedy rich stockholders.
Somewhere somehow these folks are guilty of price-fixing and conspiracy to defraud.
Somebody needs to bitch slap this arrogant turd!!

Today I am not of a mind to speak politely about willful assh^les.  


1 out of 2
We dumped peerage

Yes indeed.

and preferential treatment by birth.

Have you ever met a Kennedy?

Or a Bush?

Or a Rockefeller?

Or any office-holding beneficiary of (de facto) inherited political power?

>^..^<


[ Parent ]
Last I checked
the US gave trillions to the banks, while having no money for universal health care which the cousin-boinking Brits do have money for.

Americans might not buy into royalty and peerage but they buy into Griffith's idea of socio-economic inequality MORE than the Brits, and much much more than other western European countries that also buy into royalty and peerage.

Let me put it this way, it isn't the royalty and the peerage that is the most responsible for socio-economic inequality.


[ Parent ]
Indeed
It would be hard to imagine another citizenry beside that of the United States that would fight AGAINST providing health care for itself.

If a rich society cannot do such a basic thing for itself, then what is the future of that society?


[ Parent ]
To be fair,
it isn't really the U.S. citizenry in general opposing universal health care -- even after months of nonstop propaganda, the idea's still pretty popular.  It's just a small reactionary fringe being paid by the reactionary political establishment who are making a fuss, giving Obama the cover he needs to push the plan supported by his funders instead of his voters.

[ Parent ]
To be fair...
...the citizenry of the United States could have pressured its Congress to enact universal health care at any time since World War I.

In WWI, they were told that to have such care would be "like the Prussians". A little later, it was "like the Bolsheviks". Ever since, it's been "like the socialists". The citizens could easily have cast off the propaganda, but they have chosen to live by it instead.

It's been over ninety years now.


[ Parent ]
Class war - bring it on.


The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

oh, but you're overlooking the latest talking point!
That if these firms don't reward talent, the talent will shop their résumés to other firms that will be eager to have them do the same things for them! And pay them richly for it!

Can you imagine how attractive their recent job history will be?

2001-3. Vice-President for Human Resources, Schlock & Kitsch Bancorp. Borrowed from 401k funds to buy Enron at its height. Persuaded the IRS that the resulting loss was depreciation. Pocketed a record bonus after crafting a generous severance package for departing VPs.

2003-5. CFO, Nazgul-Sauron Group. Sold company's remaining manufacturing assets and patents to China for a one-year boost in earnings revenue. Invested the remaining capital in the new subprime mortgage industry. Pocketed a bonus equal to two previous CEOs combined.

2005-7. COO, J. P. Mordor Co. Offshored the company's income in the CEO's name (who will be released from Allentown in 2015). Persuaded Board to invest in Madoff Fast Capital Growth Fund.

2007-9. CEO, Avarice, Mendacity, Citigrab Bancorp. Reduced company's market share by half, its share value by two thirds, its cashflow by -110% and its TARP rescue package by 90% in offshore trading.

CAREER GOAL: To provide my insight, talent and experience to future employers. My vision is limitless.

Wouldn't you hire any of this crew?

O Death where is thy Sting-a-ling-a-ling or Grave thy Victory?


A Stellar Résumé!
As long as I get 51% of your takings, you're hired.

[ Parent ]
I wonder if the 'Lord' is related to Billy James Hargis
A reminiscense (on a different thread) at Crooks and Liars:
Hargis: "I doubt very sincerely that those things (the riots in Detroit and Newark in 1968) were the results of people being mistreated. I think it was results of people maybe being treated too well by the state. They were told they didn't have to work. They were told they didn't have to provide for their own. They were told they could get security from the cradle to the grave and these people wanted more and more and more. We're covetous by nature. We want more and more and more. We see someone with something we don't have we covet it, we want it. The bible warns against covetesness. Christ told us never to covet somebody else's. They worked for it, they were entitled to it They had a right to it."

Hargis: "I'm telling the Negro people to quit whining. I'm telling the poor white people to quit whining. Quit whining about injustices, real or imagined. But get out and better your situation. Stand up on your own two feet. Don't wait until someone comes along and gives you life on a silver platter."



>^..^<

You really did just wake up from a coma that began in the early ninties. How awful for you.
I've provided a dozen or so proofs that Clinton was a rightwing Dixiecrat and that he, the Bushes and Obama have the same politics. One is not worse or better than the others; they're the same.

You're attempts to apologize for them are pointless. When you do actually offer a fact, rather than an opinion, the4y turn out to prove the left's case, and debunk you right centrist myth making.  

Here are some more proofs, not for you but for anyone who might be inclined to share your particular form of partisan blindness.

NAFTA - Sep 14, 1993 Remarks by Bill Clinton at a NAFTA Rally with Bush 1, Carter and other right wing NAFTA supporters

"...It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. (Applause.) We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And, though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win..."  

DEREGULATION - Here's all the proof anyone needs that Clinton and his Treasury Secretary were behind deregulation 100% and proud of it.

AND Tom Hayden says

"Clinton deregulated the derivatives market and hedge funds, so called because they are investment instruments designed to "hedge" against risk, where the supposed values are "derived" from underlying assets (for example, when shaky home loans were bundled into securities and sold to third parties as if they were AAA-rated). Under Bush, between 2002 and 2008, the derivatives market rose in estimated value from $106 trillion to $531 trillion, 35 percent to 40 percent of all corporate profits with no oversight, according to Obama Economic Advisory Chair Paul Volcker. That was because, under Clinton and his treasury secretaries Rubin and Alan Greenspan, there was deliberate elimination of oversight when it was proposed by Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. She was fired for her efforts."
Clinton not only championed deregulation he meticioulsy eliminated any chance that the looter rich would be bothered by pesky feds looking over their shoulders as they fleeced working people.

DOMA -

"By the time Clinton arrived in Chicago for his party's convention in August, nothing that hinted at liberalism was left hanging on him. When the President, who had begun his term advocating the rights of gays in the military, came around to supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition for gay and lesbian unions, Dole was wide-eyed. "Is there anything we're for that he won't jump on?" Dole asked. The answer, essentially, was nothing..."

Then Clinton went on the radio with ads boasting that he'd championed DOMA. And they didn't appear on just any old stations but on southern redneck cult stations like those owned by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. He had to go after the redneck vote since he'd so lost so many union votes over NAFTA.

Clinton, like Sam Nunn, was one of the Dixiecrats who didn't formally switch to the Republican Party like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. Instead he finished the process of realigning the Democrats as a mirror image of the Republicans.

We are not agreeing on anything. You're an apologist for a Dixiecrat and a hustler from Chicago's infamous machine. Those politics are bankrupt.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


Oops. Heres the best stuff on how Clinton's deregulation led to 15 million unemployed.
Yet Bill Clinton, elected in large part because of that recession (a la James Carville's "It's the economy, stupid"), was talking about deregulation before he was even inaugurated. The National Review reported that "Bill Clinton embraced at least one Reaganesque idea at the Little Rock economic summit" he held in December 1992: "banking deregulation."

The banking industry objected to regulations put in place in 1989 after the S&L debacle, as well as others dating back to FDR. The heads of the six major U.S. banking associations, according to the National Review, had written "a long letter to the President-elect in December advocating nine substantive reforms." The conservative magazine concluded that the new president seemed more than willing to oblige, but bank deregulation was being held back by such powerful congressmen as "House Banking Chairman Henry Gonzalez (D., Tex.), a populist throwback to the Thirties who believes bankers are by definition out to exploit the 'little guy'" and "House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D., Mich.), who holds a quasi-religious belief that banks caused the Great Depression and must be tightly regulated. (Dingell's father was a principal author of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.)"

The Glass-Steagall Act was, in fact, a primary target of the Clinton-era deregulation effort.

From It's The Deregulation, Stupid, published by MotherJones, written by James Ridgeway



The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox