Nature and economics share some fascinating patterns, one of which explains why Donald Trump is about to become president and how the morbidly rich have appropriated over $50 trillion from working class people since the 1980s.
The predators will keep eating us until they crash the system whereupon the predators who run the system will start it up again and blame the collapse on the prey. That's how I remember 2008.
The principal beneficiary is not domestic...ithe BRIC nations want to overwhelm us. Devalue our currency. Steal our markets, assets, We are in this position becaause we were attacked by Russian psy ops. Trump is also backed by Saudi Arabian money.
interesting list. I don't know if I would rank Angela Merkel and the Pope as wealthy, powerful yes. The pope does have the entire resources of the Catholic Church at his command, but I don't see him throwing parties on a yacht,or having mansions around the world for his mistresses.
Although it is well know that some Popes not only had mistresses but bastards, like the Medici Popes.
Our last ditch effort. “The upshot is that Donald Trump remains constitutionally disqualified from the presidency and may not lawfully serve in that office or any other unless Congress removes the disqualification by two-thirds majorities of both houses. Nothing in Trump v. Anderson changes that legal reality.”
William Baude and Michael Paulsen, Harvard Law Review, Sweeping Section Three under the Rug: A Comment on Trump v. Anderson
Takes 20% of members of Congress to shift the burden to Trump.
Thom… Yes, yes, this is clear to see for those who’ve been able to parse past the lies, propaganda, carnival barking, media mis-coverage and slow drip of corrupt elites and power brokers as they’ve continually slid away protections and equity from the masses. For 3 decades Robert Reich (and others) have been warning all who would listen of this pending and steadily amplifying clusterfuck of thievery.
Hmm, maybe because humans as a general mass are so stupid and selfish; both characteristics preventing America from appropriately and proactively arresting the movement of almost all money and power to the very pinnacles of our society.
And now..? I don’t envision a place or time when 2/3 of either chamber (never mind both) accumulates enough clear-eyed, principled politicians able to gather their vertebrae off the floor, rebuild and insert their spines back into their centers and muster the ability to enact critically different legislative change to stop this train and prevent us (then the globe) from tumbling, crashing, exploding over cliff into dark chasm of unimaginable collective pain and chaos.
The Trumpler 2.0 clusterfuck is in plain view (ingredients: self-interested compliant billionaire cronies, fully corrupt right wingnut SCOTUS, our mostly neutered, utterly unregulated media lie machines and pathetically-corrupt, dickless Congress). They will run at high speed the American machine white hot -hotter than ever- and in their favor with epic impunity until it implodes.
Feeling worried… The party favoring destruction-of-education-&-fact and more-guns-than-people has dumbed us down enough to seem past the point of mitigating disaster.
People often ask, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” I say, “…because collectively we, naively, selfishly and with a complete absence of imagination, enable most of the bad things…”
I remember, with great sorrow the election of Ronald Reagan. Our local newspaper's headline was " Bonzo Goes to Washington". Carter was dealing with difficult issues, exacerbated by Republican treason/interference. It seemed apparent that Carter was a decent honest man, but I had no idea, at the time, how underhanded the Regan administration was. Jeremy Renner starred in a movie "Shoot the messenger" that detailed Regan's Iran Contra/ drug smuggling operations. Even after Nixon, this is shocking. Sadly, Reagan seems refined compared to Trump.
Loss of innovation is also a casualty of too much concentration. Malcolm Gladwell looks at this in his most recent book, "Revenge of the Tipping Point", in the sections on monocultures and especially the chapter on Poplar Grove. The hyper-rich can be seen as a monoculture and will have all the downsides which come with that situation.
There are men today who are wealthier than some entire nations. They are against democracy because it is a rival for control. When they say government is doing things best left to private charities, they know they would never donate to those charities; they prefer to donate to things with their name on it, like a museum, a theater, or a college of business. I read a clip recently of hedge funder Kenneth Griffin spending $44.6 million on a stegosaurus skeleton. That could have helped a lot of homeless people--if he cared.
"Government is doing things best left to private charities." If they wanted to do it, they could improve everyones' lives. E.G. Social Security is the greatest anti poverty program in US history.
Charity begins at home. They get tax deductions, plus if propely applied, it increases the GDP and tax revenues. If Social Security is sliding toward a "default" it is because Congress and a succession of presidents would sell their families for a few votes. The default of Trust Funds is supposed to apex in 2034 due to the increase of birth rates of baby boomers. After 2034, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent.
Social Security protects workers, widow(er)s, orphans and disabled people and is a major investment for many of us.
Please donate to create an endowment to slow down the rate. If everyone who donates to say, universities, which aren't really charities, the trust funds would be secure.
Here's an ABA article for tax and estate lawyers I published a few years ago. December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American soci- ety to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Democrats share the blame. Jimmy Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission. At the time it was a little talked about international organization that served the interests of business. It was one of the key organization pushing neoliberalism. Carter filled his administration with Commission members. His Vice-President, Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury, were all members of the Trilateral Commission. Carter's National Security Advisor was its director. Many lesser officials also came from the commission.
In 1975 the Trilateral Commission issued a book-length report called The Crisis of Democracy (written by Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki). The writers worried about the “governability of the democracies.” Frankly scared by the Sixties when “previously passive or unorganized groups in the population,” such as “blacks, Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students and women — all of whom became organized and mobilized in new ways to achieve what they considered to be their appropriate share of the action and of the rewards.” The Commission believed that “some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups” was a prerequisite for democracy. Higher education should emphasize “economic and political goals” not political engagement. If college was offered to the masses, “a program is then necessary to lower the job expectations of those who receive a college education.” We all knew that business was pouring more money into politics, but we had no idea how organized the corporate campaign was.
It's easy to see that workers are being ground-up and spit out by the oligarchs. What is not easy to see is why so many workers voted to keep it that way.
We are about to face years of literal insanity in the form of childish rich men (and the women who support them) trying to run the jungle once more.
I plan to focus on the people that voted for truth, fairness, and justice.
I guess it is a good thing to be reminded that things come and go. Democracy is messy, but we have to remember we are NOT powerless. These morally bankrupt creeps have VERY thin margins in Congress. We can use that.
Even rabbits can scratch and bite. Don't let the bastards grind you down.
Our history books are carefully censored to avoid any mention of the predatory aspects of capitalism that was founded on slavery and the theft of indigenous lands and later of overseas colonies. The Enclosure Acts in England and Scotland forced farmers off their lands and made them criminals overnight.
Presidents Washington and Jefferson profited from massacring the indigenous people and then selling their lands for profit to new immigrants. Ending this practice with the Proclamation of 1763 was a key factor in the elites deciding to rebel against the king.
Few people realize that the wealth of Great Britain was stolen from the people of India. More than 75% of the GDP of the UK was stolen from India and after the people gained their freedom in 1948 the GDP of the UK quickly plummeted.
Prior to the enactment of Glass-Steagal there was a recession or market crash every 3 years on average. The stability of this control over the financial sector ended with Clinton in 1999 (one of his many stupid moves) and we have seen the disasterour results first hand.
A great report. Ralph Nader would love it. A handful of years ago, talking politics with a few friends, I said, Ronald Reason re-introduced slavery back into the U. S. [because of the air traffic control strike]. They wanted to kill me. President Clinton made the banks, brokers, a Nafta fan, expanded NATO, all have come back to bite us on the ass. The one good thing he did, along with Panetta, was to balance the budget. Along comes Bush, not only is he the worst foreign policy president,[along with Biden, etc] but also gives away the surplus mostly to the rich, conning us that ''it's our money''. That was the start of the national debt going from 5 trillion to 35 trillion. I believe we have gone from the U.S. of America, to the U.S. of Humpty-Dumpty, because we didn't have the brains to fund our elections by We the People, instead of warmongers and tax bandits. We should have funded the I.R.S. instead of keeping it toothless and barefooted. We should have never charged our kids to get educated, we should have done Just the opposite. Poor kids who have to quit to go to work to help the family pay the rent should a been given a stipend, weekly or monthly to insure that they reach thier full potential. Carl Scala
Sadly, magats are dumber than rabbits. I didn't count the number of times the word "we" appeared in the article, but it's a lot. So what "we" are we talking about? The we that elected Trump? We gets defined more clearly in anticipation of conflict with them. They elected them, and in the US, they number 74 million. We need to include some/most/all of them in our coalition, or we and they are both screwed. Their voting sucks, and some truly are deplorable. But most of them are decent enough, and most contribute to society in significant ways.
So I probably shouldn't call them dumber than rabbits, even if they mostly are. Disdain is my first instinct, cause we are obviously better than they. That plays well in our blue bubble, but preaching to the choir converts no souls. Politics is based largely upon the suspension of contempt, hard to swallow, but has the virtue of being the only alternative to acquiescence or violence, i.e., slavery or war. However, it takes two to tango, if they are intractable, politics is futile. That leaves the other two options. Death comes to both predator and prey in the end. Sartre stated that our only truly inalienable right is the right to shout NO, and go down swinging. Another man wiser than I said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
There will be no rational solution of the sort you properly recommend. The morbidly rich have the arrogance but not the insight of Louis XV when he famously said “ Apres moi, le deluge.” It will take something like that for real change to happen, if even then. I fear the problem is human nature. Capitalism instills the yen to be morbidly rich in millions who never can and never will.
Thank you once again for your astute observations and pointing out that nature does balance itself, regardless of the ego’s involved.
That being said, the balance is tenuous and can be fraught with misery simply because the balance is accomplished regardless of the level of either spiritual or intellectual maturity of the population involved.
Probably, because we are talking about opposite sides of the same pole. Those that suffer the most seem to quietly envy and even aspire to be among the morbidly wealthy and powerful that are attempting to gobble them up, and the powerful are chilled to the bone with fear that they will never have enough to isolate themselves from either their own eventual demise or the worse fate of being poor in this society.
I agree that our only saving, is a strong middle class. We are the stability of this crazy economic system. Until we as a species manage to wake up and realize we are ALL in this together.
Although evolution may be a driving force unconsciously throughout life, we can rise above these instinctive forces and begin to recognize our need for compassion and concentrate on our mutual commonness and worth instead of supposed superiority or inferiority. So many things in our lives will need to be completely overhauled before we can truly call ourselves civilized as a species.
The predators will keep eating us until they crash the system whereupon the predators who run the system will start it up again and blame the collapse on the prey. That's how I remember 2008.
At my age, I will never see it.
The principal beneficiary is not domestic...ithe BRIC nations want to overwhelm us. Devalue our currency. Steal our markets, assets, We are in this position becaause we were attacked by Russian psy ops. Trump is also backed by Saudi Arabian money.
More likely Trump will be a dictator on Day 1, like he says. Has a raft of executive orders ready to go. A huge probablity he will allege an emergency exists and try to become a dictator for life. https://truthout.org/articles/trump-is-using-unitary-executive-theory-in-his-bid-to-amass-supreme-power/
He tried to do it re DACA, but at the time, SCOTUS stopped him. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration Since then, he got an education and the makeup of SCOTUS has changed. He will try to make SCOTUS irrelevant.
If he has a prototype in mind, it's Putin, who may/may not be the richest man in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin%27s_rise_to_power#:~:text=On%2031%20December%201999%2C%20following,2012%2C%202018%2C%20and%202024.
The richest man in the world is he who commands the largest economy. Wealth is not cash, wealth is not stocks and shares, wealth is what you command.
If you have people, transportation, residence, entertainment, food at your command you are wealthy.
Mao Tse Tung got a pocket allowance of $300 a month, but had at his disposal the entire resources, including humans of China.
I doubt that the MBS has a budget.
What is the wealth of Saudi Arabia, or the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, that is the wealth of their Sheiks, Emirs, Kings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_the_World%27s_Most_Powerful_People#:~:text=Slots%20were%20allocated%20based%20on,most%20powerful%20person%204%20times.
interesting list. I don't know if I would rank Angela Merkel and the Pope as wealthy, powerful yes. The pope does have the entire resources of the Catholic Church at his command, but I don't see him throwing parties on a yacht,or having mansions around the world for his mistresses.
Although it is well know that some Popes not only had mistresses but bastards, like the Medici Popes.
Our last ditch effort. “The upshot is that Donald Trump remains constitutionally disqualified from the presidency and may not lawfully serve in that office or any other unless Congress removes the disqualification by two-thirds majorities of both houses. Nothing in Trump v. Anderson changes that legal reality.”
William Baude and Michael Paulsen, Harvard Law Review, Sweeping Section Three under the Rug: A Comment on Trump v. Anderson
Takes 20% of members of Congress to shift the burden to Trump.
I am not against this, but wouldn't something between January 6th on steroids and all out Civil War be a highly likely scenario?
Biden is still president.
Thom… Yes, yes, this is clear to see for those who’ve been able to parse past the lies, propaganda, carnival barking, media mis-coverage and slow drip of corrupt elites and power brokers as they’ve continually slid away protections and equity from the masses. For 3 decades Robert Reich (and others) have been warning all who would listen of this pending and steadily amplifying clusterfuck of thievery.
Hmm, maybe because humans as a general mass are so stupid and selfish; both characteristics preventing America from appropriately and proactively arresting the movement of almost all money and power to the very pinnacles of our society.
And now..? I don’t envision a place or time when 2/3 of either chamber (never mind both) accumulates enough clear-eyed, principled politicians able to gather their vertebrae off the floor, rebuild and insert their spines back into their centers and muster the ability to enact critically different legislative change to stop this train and prevent us (then the globe) from tumbling, crashing, exploding over cliff into dark chasm of unimaginable collective pain and chaos.
The Trumpler 2.0 clusterfuck is in plain view (ingredients: self-interested compliant billionaire cronies, fully corrupt right wingnut SCOTUS, our mostly neutered, utterly unregulated media lie machines and pathetically-corrupt, dickless Congress). They will run at high speed the American machine white hot -hotter than ever- and in their favor with epic impunity until it implodes.
Feeling worried… The party favoring destruction-of-education-&-fact and more-guns-than-people has dumbed us down enough to seem past the point of mitigating disaster.
People often ask, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” I say, “…because collectively we, naively, selfishly and with a complete absence of imagination, enable most of the bad things…”
I remember, with great sorrow the election of Ronald Reagan. Our local newspaper's headline was " Bonzo Goes to Washington". Carter was dealing with difficult issues, exacerbated by Republican treason/interference. It seemed apparent that Carter was a decent honest man, but I had no idea, at the time, how underhanded the Regan administration was. Jeremy Renner starred in a movie "Shoot the messenger" that detailed Regan's Iran Contra/ drug smuggling operations. Even after Nixon, this is shocking. Sadly, Reagan seems refined compared to Trump.
Loss of innovation is also a casualty of too much concentration. Malcolm Gladwell looks at this in his most recent book, "Revenge of the Tipping Point", in the sections on monocultures and especially the chapter on Poplar Grove. The hyper-rich can be seen as a monoculture and will have all the downsides which come with that situation.
There are men today who are wealthier than some entire nations. They are against democracy because it is a rival for control. When they say government is doing things best left to private charities, they know they would never donate to those charities; they prefer to donate to things with their name on it, like a museum, a theater, or a college of business. I read a clip recently of hedge funder Kenneth Griffin spending $44.6 million on a stegosaurus skeleton. That could have helped a lot of homeless people--if he cared.
"Government is doing things best left to private charities." If they wanted to do it, they could improve everyones' lives. E.G. Social Security is the greatest anti poverty program in US history.
Charity begins at home. They get tax deductions, plus if propely applied, it increases the GDP and tax revenues. If Social Security is sliding toward a "default" it is because Congress and a succession of presidents would sell their families for a few votes. The default of Trust Funds is supposed to apex in 2034 due to the increase of birth rates of baby boomers. After 2034, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent.
Social Security protects workers, widow(er)s, orphans and disabled people and is a major investment for many of us.
Please donate to create an endowment to slow down the rate. If everyone who donates to say, universities, which aren't really charities, the trust funds would be secure.
https://www.ssa.gov/agency/donations.html
Here's an ABA article for tax and estate lawyers I published a few years ago. December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American soci- ety to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Democrats share the blame. Jimmy Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission. At the time it was a little talked about international organization that served the interests of business. It was one of the key organization pushing neoliberalism. Carter filled his administration with Commission members. His Vice-President, Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury, were all members of the Trilateral Commission. Carter's National Security Advisor was its director. Many lesser officials also came from the commission.
In 1975 the Trilateral Commission issued a book-length report called The Crisis of Democracy (written by Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki). The writers worried about the “governability of the democracies.” Frankly scared by the Sixties when “previously passive or unorganized groups in the population,” such as “blacks, Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students and women — all of whom became organized and mobilized in new ways to achieve what they considered to be their appropriate share of the action and of the rewards.” The Commission believed that “some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups” was a prerequisite for democracy. Higher education should emphasize “economic and political goals” not political engagement. If college was offered to the masses, “a program is then necessary to lower the job expectations of those who receive a college education.” We all knew that business was pouring more money into politics, but we had no idea how organized the corporate campaign was.
It's easy to see that workers are being ground-up and spit out by the oligarchs. What is not easy to see is why so many workers voted to keep it that way.
We are about to face years of literal insanity in the form of childish rich men (and the women who support them) trying to run the jungle once more.
I plan to focus on the people that voted for truth, fairness, and justice.
I guess it is a good thing to be reminded that things come and go. Democracy is messy, but we have to remember we are NOT powerless. These morally bankrupt creeps have VERY thin margins in Congress. We can use that.
Even rabbits can scratch and bite. Don't let the bastards grind you down.
An irony is that many are not "wokers,"survive on benefits that a MAGAT Congress will cut or eliminate.
Is a managed transition possible? Or will we see chaos first?
Our history books are carefully censored to avoid any mention of the predatory aspects of capitalism that was founded on slavery and the theft of indigenous lands and later of overseas colonies. The Enclosure Acts in England and Scotland forced farmers off their lands and made them criminals overnight.
Presidents Washington and Jefferson profited from massacring the indigenous people and then selling their lands for profit to new immigrants. Ending this practice with the Proclamation of 1763 was a key factor in the elites deciding to rebel against the king.
Few people realize that the wealth of Great Britain was stolen from the people of India. More than 75% of the GDP of the UK was stolen from India and after the people gained their freedom in 1948 the GDP of the UK quickly plummeted.
Prior to the enactment of Glass-Steagal there was a recession or market crash every 3 years on average. The stability of this control over the financial sector ended with Clinton in 1999 (one of his many stupid moves) and we have seen the disasterour results first hand.
Not all history books. https://www.amazon.com/Main-Currents-American-Thought-1620-1800/dp/0806120800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_Louis_Parrington
A great report. Ralph Nader would love it. A handful of years ago, talking politics with a few friends, I said, Ronald Reason re-introduced slavery back into the U. S. [because of the air traffic control strike]. They wanted to kill me. President Clinton made the banks, brokers, a Nafta fan, expanded NATO, all have come back to bite us on the ass. The one good thing he did, along with Panetta, was to balance the budget. Along comes Bush, not only is he the worst foreign policy president,[along with Biden, etc] but also gives away the surplus mostly to the rich, conning us that ''it's our money''. That was the start of the national debt going from 5 trillion to 35 trillion. I believe we have gone from the U.S. of America, to the U.S. of Humpty-Dumpty, because we didn't have the brains to fund our elections by We the People, instead of warmongers and tax bandits. We should have funded the I.R.S. instead of keeping it toothless and barefooted. We should have never charged our kids to get educated, we should have done Just the opposite. Poor kids who have to quit to go to work to help the family pay the rent should a been given a stipend, weekly or monthly to insure that they reach thier full potential. Carl Scala
Sadly, magats are dumber than rabbits. I didn't count the number of times the word "we" appeared in the article, but it's a lot. So what "we" are we talking about? The we that elected Trump? We gets defined more clearly in anticipation of conflict with them. They elected them, and in the US, they number 74 million. We need to include some/most/all of them in our coalition, or we and they are both screwed. Their voting sucks, and some truly are deplorable. But most of them are decent enough, and most contribute to society in significant ways.
So I probably shouldn't call them dumber than rabbits, even if they mostly are. Disdain is my first instinct, cause we are obviously better than they. That plays well in our blue bubble, but preaching to the choir converts no souls. Politics is based largely upon the suspension of contempt, hard to swallow, but has the virtue of being the only alternative to acquiescence or violence, i.e., slavery or war. However, it takes two to tango, if they are intractable, politics is futile. That leaves the other two options. Death comes to both predator and prey in the end. Sartre stated that our only truly inalienable right is the right to shout NO, and go down swinging. Another man wiser than I said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
Somehow I knew this would end in shit.
Talk about the tale of the snake eating its tail!
Not only is it serious, but it’s fun to work against them!
Our Progress is to our Honor!
Happy 2025!
We were made to survive and thrive!
Correction: it's the Lotka-Volterra equation
There will be no rational solution of the sort you properly recommend. The morbidly rich have the arrogance but not the insight of Louis XV when he famously said “ Apres moi, le deluge.” It will take something like that for real change to happen, if even then. I fear the problem is human nature. Capitalism instills the yen to be morbidly rich in millions who never can and never will.
Thank you once again for your astute observations and pointing out that nature does balance itself, regardless of the ego’s involved.
That being said, the balance is tenuous and can be fraught with misery simply because the balance is accomplished regardless of the level of either spiritual or intellectual maturity of the population involved.
Probably, because we are talking about opposite sides of the same pole. Those that suffer the most seem to quietly envy and even aspire to be among the morbidly wealthy and powerful that are attempting to gobble them up, and the powerful are chilled to the bone with fear that they will never have enough to isolate themselves from either their own eventual demise or the worse fate of being poor in this society.
I agree that our only saving, is a strong middle class. We are the stability of this crazy economic system. Until we as a species manage to wake up and realize we are ALL in this together.
Although evolution may be a driving force unconsciously throughout life, we can rise above these instinctive forces and begin to recognize our need for compassion and concentrate on our mutual commonness and worth instead of supposed superiority or inferiority. So many things in our lives will need to be completely overhauled before we can truly call ourselves civilized as a species.