Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
This website allows posters to nominate and support their nomination with reasons, as to exactly who is the 1% and what they have done to be so reviled.

You tell us. We'll compile your suggestions and hold a vote to decide which ones Brave New Foundation will expose. We have just two criteria: they have to be in the wealthiest 1%, meaning a net worth of over $9 million, and they have to be using their wealth and power to keep down the other 99%. The rest is up to you. Have at it.

http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/whoarethe1percent/


This should get interesting.

Hetep
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Koch brothers. Ann Coulter. Karl Rove. Cheney family. Bush family.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
President Obama as well.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
President Obama as well.

How so? Born to privilige? Family truse baby?

IB Pore
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How so? Born to privilige? Family truse baby?

From the OP:

We have just two criteria: they have to be in the wealthiest 1%, meaning a net worth of over $9 million, and they have to be using their wealth and power to keep down the other 99%.

He has net worth >$10 million and uses his power to maintain the status quo.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We have just two criteria: they have to be in the wealthiest 1%, meaning a net worth of over $9 million, and they have to be using their wealth and power to keep down the other 99%.

He has net worth >$10 million and uses his power to maintain the status quo.


We ALL see you screwed up. Can *you* tell us *where* you screwed up (this itme)?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Maintain the status quo? First, it depends on how you define status quo. In my mind, the status quo is monied interests working dilligently to return this country to the stone ages, hence any effort to stymie that effort is change (and for the good). Second, what about the Affordable Care Act (nee Obamacare - which I for one see as a definite step int he right direction and for the BENEFIT of the 52 million UNINSURED in this country); Dodd Frank (not nearly far enough, but better than what the Republican are proposing - NOTHING); the end of DADT, the end of the Iraq war; the end of the Afghanistan war; the end of Qaddafi (Kadafi, Qadafi - or how you spell it); the support of the workers and the preservation of AMERICAN manufacturing of automobiles. Gee. Keeping the other 99% down? I think not (although I think there is a long way to go).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In my mind, the status quo is monied interests working dilligently to return this country to the stone ages, hence any effort to stymie that effort is change (and for the good).

I don't agree that trying to stop negative change is change. *shrug*


Second, what about the Affordable Care Act (nee Obamacare - which I for one see as a definite step int he right direction and for the BENEFIT of the 52 million UNINSURED in this country); Dodd Frank (not nearly far enough, but better than what the Republican are proposing - NOTHING); the end of DADT, the end of the Iraq war; the end of the Afghanistan war; the end of Qaddafi (Kadafi, Qadafi - or how you spell it)

Obamacare maintains insurance company (1%) profits. I do grant that it does help a little, but it is basically the Republican alternative to Hillary's health care proposal from the 90s.

Labeling the launch of another undeclared war of choice 'the end of Qaddafi' is Orwellian. Granted, it was a much smaller war. But it maintained the status quo of executive power beyond what he should have.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." - Obama before he became President

The status quo of excessive executive branch power is still being maintained.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." - Obama before he became Presiden



From a legal perspective, "we" did not attack Libya, NATO did. We assisted NATO with the attacks. So from that standpoint, we did not send the military into Libya.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
From a legal perspective, "we" did not attack Libya, NATO did. We assisted NATO with the attacks. So from that standpoint, we did not send the military into Libya.

The NATO treaty only provided for self defense - for supporting one member if they were attacked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm...

The North Atlantic Treaty provides no support for the intervention in Libya, AFAICT.

The UN Security Resolutions could provide better legal cover...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...

Still reading...UN Charter could support it, I think. My opinion of Obama would move up on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Natio...

Congressional support was granted via the combination of the UN Charter ratification in 1945 and Security Council Resolution 1973. I could buy that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Obamacare maintains insurance company (1%) profits.

AFTER all costs have been paid--i.e. executive bonuses, profit sharing to executives, and funding stock options granted to executives, plus ALL the benefits paid to executives (planes, trains, automobiles, etc). Oh, you forgot to add those back (right?).

Then you forgot premiums will new be tied to costs--so that limits the amount insurance companies can charge. Which is NOT like this year, where insurance companies jacked up premiums 9% because this their last opportunity to do so *without* proving they actually *needed* the money to cover *healthcare* costs.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

No conservative objected to Raygun bombing Gaddhafi. No conservative demanded the impeachment of GWB and Cheney for starting their Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. Obama merely was cleaning up the messes left behind by conservatives (as they obviously lack the ability to clean up after themselves).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

No conservative objected to Raygun bombing Gaddhafi. No conservative demanded the impeachment of GWB and Cheney for starting their Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. Obama merely was cleaning up the messes left behind by conservatives (as they obviously lack the ability to clean up after themselves).


what conservatives didn't say isn't relevant.

'trying to clean up after them' works for Iraq & Afghanistan, not for Libya


but ,IMO, more to the point --the President has NO power domestically. I think he's tried, but been thwarted by GOP legislatures * ..whether he tried hard enough is difficult to measure

clearly Some think he didn't try at all.



* good chance for ACA, by GOP courts
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I do grant that it does help a little

It'll help people with pre-existing conditions a lot. It'll help people who dream of starting their own business but are tethered to their current employer by health insurance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
what conservatives didn't say isn't relevant.

Why are you trying to hide their failures--again?

'trying to clean up after them' works for Iraq & Afghanistan, not for Libya

Works for ALL their failures--not just those two instances.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
what conservatives didn't say isn't relevant.

Why are you trying to hide their failures--again?


maybe i misunderstood ..

i just don't see it much of a defense against criticism of Obama that
< Bush did worse and conservatives said nothing >

some of why *i* think liberals are 'better' --they criticize their 'leaders' (rather than marching lock-step off the cliff)

it is a defense to say at least some of his failing is because he's trying to clean up Bush's messes (AND Congress is not really trying to help)



'trying to clean up after them' works for Iraq & Afghanistan, not for Libya

Works for ALL their failures--not just those two instances.


agreed. was Libya one of their failures?
Ben's claim was that Obama's Libya action was unjustified (IF i understood corrrectly)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ben's claim was that Obama's Libya action was unjustified (IF i understood corrrectly)

My claim was that the action was un-Constitutional. After reading more about the UN resolutions and UN charter I withdraw the claim.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ben's claim was that Obama's Libya action was unjustified (IF i understood corrrectly)
--------
My claim was that the action was un-Constitutional. After reading more about the UN resolutions and UN charter I withdraw the claim.



i knew that ...POOR choice of word on my part.


and i'll trust your conclusion that it is (now) Constitutional
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In my mind, the status quo is monied interests working dilligently to return this country to the stone ages, hence any effort to stymie that effort is change (and for the good).

I'm not aware of any monied interests trying to "return this country to the stone ages."

Second, what about the Affordable Care Act (nee Obamacare - which I for one see as a definite step int he right direction and for the BENEFIT of the 52 million UNINSURED in this country)

Don't you mean the Unaffordable Care Act? Those who voted for this 2,0000 plus page bill didn't even read it or understand it. Recent guesstimates put the tab for the bill at over a trillion for ten years. This is only partially paid for despite robbing over $700 billion from Medicare. So it adds to our already unsustainable government spending and trillion dollar deficits while taking money from an already unsustainable government health care program.

The bill didn't include any proven cost-saving reforms (tort reform, allowing the sale of health insurance across state lines, allowing the unemployed or self-employed to deduct all health care expenses, expanding HSA's) which would have placed our health care system on a more sustainable path while helping those who are currently priced out of health care.

In fact, the bill drives up insurance costs in the private market and pushes more people onto Medicaid, a system so dysfunctional that outcomes are worse than being uninsured. "Being covered" or "being insured" doesn't ensure decent health care.

Dodd Frank (not nearly far enough, but better than what the Republican are proposing - NOTHING); the end of DADT, the end of the Iraq war; the end of the Afghanistan war

Dodd-Frank is an abomination. The two architects were principal villains of the housing bubble. The bill did nothing to reform Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the GSE's which underwrote the housing bubble. It makes it harder for people to obtain credit. It increases regulation which hampers business and increases unemployment - by doing so, it has contributed to the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. It reinforces "too big to fail," a concept which allows the use of taxpayer money (currently borrowed from your children and grandchildren) to bail out irresponsible millionaires and billionaires.

the end of the Iraq war; the end of the Afghanistan war; the end of Qaddafi (Kadafi, Qadafi - or how you spell it)

Obama has quite a mixed record here. He did engage in an unauthorized war in Libya. Our Libyan involvement did lead to the end of Qaddafi but with what? Islamists are apparently gaining strength there and it is not a success. The Benghazi debacle is the icing on the cake.

And what about his use of drones which eradicate people, including innocent bystanders, without a trial?

the support of the workers and the preservation of AMERICAN manufacturing of automobiles. Gee. Keeping the other 99% down? I think not (although I think there is a long way to go).

Obama supports unions, not workers. That's a big distinction. He supports unions at the expense of individual worker rights/freedoms - the right to their own hard earned money, the right to decide which politicians get their financial support and the freedom to decide not to join a union. His support for unions comes at the expense of taxpayers in general and more specifically, children who are trapped in failing public schools.

In one infamous case, Obama's underlings fought the building of a Boeing plant in order to appease his union supporters. How does this help workers?

How does strangling business and job creation with regulation help workers?

In addition, Obama doles out billions and billions to Wall Street and all manner of doomed enterprises to enrich his buddies while pushing the nation further into a debt abyss.

Obama isn't about hope and change. He's just a power-mad politician and crony capitalist who doesn't give a flying you-know-what about the plight of working or out-of-work Americans.


dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
He's just a power-mad politician and crony capitalist who doesn't give a flying you-know-what about the plight of working or out-of-work Americans.



LOL.....so much for the "he's a Marxist Socialist" mantra.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
LOL.....so much for the "he's a Marxist Socialist" mantra.

Crony capitalism is not true capitalism. It is a perversion favored by those in political power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

It is possible to engage in crony capitalism - or crapitalism - while at the same time, promoting socialist or marxist policies.

Crony capitalism actually helps the socialist/marxist in two ways. It buys support from those who benefit while at the same time casting capitalism in a bad light. The socialist/marxist can say "hey look at how unfair capitalism is" when the rich get richer from cronyism. Of course, in true capitalism, the rich wouldn't have unfair advantages from cronyism.

The most prominent socialist/marxists were/are experts at cronyism. Under socialism/marxism, government is empowered while individual rights/freedoms are crushed. This happens under the guise of a "fairer" or more equal society. The net result is a pseudoegalitarian society where cronyism confers wealth. Those who are politically connected are enriched while everybody else is consigned to poverty. This is contrast to capitalism where merit confers wealth and most people are prosperous despite greater disparity in wealth.

dave
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Crony capitalism is not true capitalism. It is a perversion favored by those in political power.

Reminds me of: Communism -- as practiced in the old Soviet Union, China, etc. -- is not true communism. It is a perversion favored by those in political power.

Guess they cancel each other out.

culcha
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement