[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] Madigan should be supported on this

Sat Aug 30 21:00:01 EDT 2014

This doesn't make much sense.

On Aug 30, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Stan via OccupyCU <occupycu at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> Carl you claim to be a free-speech advocate you claim also that Bernie Sanders is a hack for the 1% then, lastly you claim that money is speech therefore your actual belief is that a billionaire has more free speech than you or I do, Carl your a 1%er supporter just like Bernie Sanders.
> 
> Bye for now.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2014, at 11:59 AM, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
>> 
>> That's not what I asked. The Democrats support (= shill for) the one-percent. 
>> 
>> Republicans and Democrats are both neoliberal parties, with slightly different rhetorical approaches. 
>> 
>> "Neoliberal" is not a well-known term in American political discourse because each party has to pretend it has the interests of the community as a whole at heart, when in fact they both work for the 1%. Neoliberalism is the assertion of the rights of property over against the rights of people - capitalism, rather than democracy - and the consequent reduction of the of the social supports that the one-percent had to concede after  the Great Depression, from the 1930s to the 1970s. (That's why Nixon's remains the most liberal administration since WWII.) The counterattack of neoliberalism (= resurgent capitalism) since the 1970s - what Europeans call austerity - has been  taken up by both political parties.  
>> 
>> Capitalism and democracy are contradictories: latter asserts one person/one vote; the former, one dollar/one vote.   
>> 
>> Sanders (Like Warren) remains a flack for the neoliberal administration and its clients:
>> 
>> <http://www.mediaite.com/online/excuse-me-shut-up-bernie-sanders-defends-israel-from-town-hall-hecklers/>.
>> 
>> --CGE
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 30, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Stan via OccupyCU <occupycu at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately corporations have taken away the free-speech rights of the people that work for them. by supporting corporations free-speech rights you deny free-speech rights to actual living human beings. Who do I support, for president I would like to support Bernie Sanders on the Democratic ticket
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 10:34 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Corporations are associations of people with free speech rights. I'm against laws that limit free speech. 
>>>> 
>>>> Of course money is speech in a society in which not all our associations are face to face. We have to buy space (in publications) or time (on the air) or bandwidth in order to be heard. (That's why publications/broadcasters/etc. should be forced to give free space/time/etc. to all candidates for public office; that would "take the money out of politics" far more effectively than overriding Citizens United, because most political expenditures are for advertising).
>>>> 
>>>> Whom do you think the Democrats "support"?
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 10:21 PM, Stan via OccupyCU <occupycu at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> So you agree with Republicans that corporations are natural people. You agree that money is speech. And you recognize that since 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans the issue is correctly settled, and we should just therefore divide the liberal votes so more Republicans can support the 1%rs. Good job.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 8:24 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Blaming the Democrats seems to me quite appropriate. They're in fact less honest about what they'll do in office than the Republicans.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> People voted for Obama because they though he'd provide peace and jobs. He's done just the opposite. Vote Democratic and get Republican policies. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I suppose you could call that "the mendacity of hope" - if you didn't want to say lies. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1] Citizens United seems to me rightly decided under the law.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What the court actually held was that "A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To hold the opposite would clearly be a restriction of free speech. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [2] The business friendly USSC is as much a product of Democrats as Republicans: look at who appointed (and approved) the sitting justices. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --CGE
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 7:52 PM, Stan via OccupyCU <occupycu at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So many people are willing to blame the Democratic Party.  Those same people seem to forget Citizens United and the Republican Supreme Court.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 4:57 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "Mine would, sir, were I human," as Ariel says.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And your evidence for this surmise is...?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ricky
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> "Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:12 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think Madigan saw (rightly) that the progressive tax would be generally opposed on the grounds that it was a way to raise taxes on everyone (while inconveniencing the rich hardly at all). 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> He therefore proposed a way to raise taxes only on the very rich. A movement to demand that is still very much in order. --CGE  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Those bills would certainly be welcome, and of course our local Dems did support the graduated tax over maintaining the current flat tax either at its current higher rate or back to its lower rate.  I believe they supported the millionaire tax, too, as a fallback, but there was some concern that - contrary to the first article you posted - Madigan's political wizardry was being deployed not to pass tax reform (his bill) but to defeat it (Jakobsson's bill).  In any case, Madigan's legendary skills, clearly in evidence on the pension cuts, did not seem to be in evidence when it came to either of these tax bills.  Priorities, we suppose.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure why it's so important to pin the failure on the Dems as a whole, though, when the GOP stood firmly against this idea and Dems were divided (left, right, center).  Seems both parties were responsible, and some Dems apparently because they saw this as a dodge of a better tax plan, say, a progressive tax.  (A similar argument can be found in the healthcare debate, I believe, in which much of the left, myself included, opposed Hillarycare because it wasn't good enough - which it clearly wasn't - with the result that no overall reform at all occurred; then again some on the left opposed Obamacare because it wasn't good enough - again, it clearly wasn't - with the result that it got worse both before and after passing into law.  Is it the left's fault, or the right's fault - or both?)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> My concern is that tax reform is now effectively dead for the forseeable future.  The argument would be, unfortunately, that if Madigan's millionaire tax couldn't get past members of his own party, much less Republicans, any more thoughtful and class-conscious bill has approximately a snowball's chance.  Hope I'm wrong, not least because the implication is deeper and deeper cuts to social programs, education, etc.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Ricky
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:29 AM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It should be clear that it's Democrats who are responsible for the failure of the millionaire tax.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Our local Democrats would support it, wouldn't they? 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I await their introduction of bills for a wealth tax and a Tobin tax. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --CGE
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> A progressive income tax or a wealth tax is what we need, or a tax on CME transactions, but since Madigan is apparently not going to use his considerable political muscle for any of those, we have no choice but to support this.  It now appears that the heady excitement may be over, however: Madigan 'millionaire tax' stalls out
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Madigan 'millionaire tax' stalls out
>>>>>>>>>>> SPRINGFIELD --- Speaker Michael Madigan wasn’t able to wrangle enough votes to get his so-called millionaire tax proposal out of the Illinois Hous...
>>>>>>>>>>> View on articles.chicagotribu...
>>>>>>>>>>> Preview by Yahoo
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Ricky 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> "Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 28, 2014 9:20 PM, C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Madigan's Millionaire Tax
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> http://politics.rebootillinois.com/2014/03/21/uncategorized/mattdietrich/political-wizard-mike-madigan-pulls-magic-wand-millionaire-tax/2190/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> OccupyCU mailing list
>>>>>>>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> OccupyCU mailing list
>>>>>>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OccupyCU mailing list
>>>>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OccupyCU mailing list
>>> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu