Most of the claims Brentwood makes (especially the "national police force") have been debunked.  Some of them quite possibly could occur ... but something has to be done to fix the financial system that unregulated speculation and risk-taking broke, and it most certainly isn't going to be doing more of what was done before.  I would also point out that many of the powers that the Bush-Cheney Crime Family claimed as arising from the Unitary Executive Theory that they expounded ... some of them included in Brentwood's rant ... were never challenged or restricted by either the last Congress or the Courts.  Quite silently (certainly without the fanfare attached to other announcements, signings, and Executive Orders Barack Obama has already made) the new administration is signaling that it plans to continue some of the policies of the Bush Administration.  Eric Holder and the woman nominated as Solicitor General have both testified, during their confirmation hearings, that they plan to uphold the use of "State Secrets" to prevent testimony or even investigation into the treatment of foreign detainees; they also stated that transporting detainees to other countries for interrogation seemed reasonable (it used to be that we transported detainees to the country of their origin for trial; Bush started flying them about to black prisons where they could be "interrogated" in ways that were not even permissible at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo), as did the fact that we could detain and classify an individual as an enemy combatant even when captured far far away from any battlefield.

So far, the Obama administration has not expressed an opinion about domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering, with or without a warrant.  He did say, back in the day when he voted to not hold the Telecom Corporations accountable so Congress could pass a law restoring judicial oversight of domestic surveillance programs, that if he became president he would revisit the issue of private corporations working with the government to snoop on Americans ... but so far, he has not done so.  And there is still the whole issue of the powers the president now has (thanks to Executive Orders by Bush) to declare a state of national emergency and take command of all military forces to restore order, plus the secret prisons rumored to have been built in the Heartland.  The latter so far appears to be nothing more than rumor (Site 42 stuff) ... but it never hurts to at least be forewarned and to keep eyes open.

Hateful, racist people like you who clearly hateAmerica and Americans is the bigger danger.

There are a number of signs that the person who posted above as "Concord" is the same person as CinClayton, aka Clayton. First, is the ridiculous claim that nazism/fascism are the same as, or equivalent to socialism. This is something Clayton wrote about numerous times. Second is the reliance on Wikipedia as an authoritative source. Clayton used that shoddy resource almost as much as he/she did the far right wing websites that his/her posts were often lifted from. Third, "Concord" is shown to have joined these boards last October, which is right around the time that "Clayton" disappeared, presumably because of having been banned for all the incendiary rot he/she posted here. Then of course there is the reference to 'oinking' by the "leftist elite". That, coupled with the name calling and overall condescension demonstrates a preference for the type of abrasive and abusive language that got "Clayton" banned in the first place.

So next time a message posted by "Concord" shows up here, read between the lines!

Eight thousand people in densely populated Orange County is not a very large crowd.  Especially when one considers the demographic in densely populated Orange County, the fact that a couple of demagogues with access to the entire (need I say densely populated) Los Angeles Metropolitan area (actually, I could hear KFI in Trinity County at night) have thrown up a few simplistic slogans that are easily digestible but actually do nothing to solve the problem, and that people right now are very frightened and quite unsure of what the next steps must be ... I am not surprised that eight thousand folks showed up.  I wonder what those two entertainers have proposed as a viable solution to California's budgetary woes (besides impeach or recall everyone).

First off, let me welcome you to the discussion, Eric Gold.  Normally I like to feel a little more glowing and happy when I welcome and greet a new voice than I do after reading your message ... it is not particularly pleasant in tone, and does not invite a thoughtful and well-intentioned conversation.  Still, I do not know you, and you may just have gotten off on the wrong foot because so many other people on this message board are rude and intolerant that it seems like the right way to do business.  Let me assure you, it is not.  So, again, well come and hopefully you will view what follows as a stern, though respectful, rebuttal to your introductory comments.

I have no "class envy", as you say.  I merely recognize that we live in a class-based society and that the for the past 30-years, the upper class has successfully regained control of political, economic, and social control of American society.  It has concentrated its control of wealth and power in this country at the expense of the middle and lower classes.  I fail to see how you can deny this to be the case.  We live in a plutocracy and a corporatist state.

That plutocratic and corporatist state has its roots in the Civil War, when the Industrial North defeated the separatist and agrarian south and imposed industrialization and urbanization on the country.  You may have noted in your casual readings on American history, and perhaps some insightful high school teacher might have pointed out somewhere along the line (if you can remember that far back), that the south remained largely undeveloped and non-industrialized for almost one hundred years after it was crushed by the Union.  We don't talk too much about Reconstruction anymore, or the brutal ways that the United States dealt with the defeated South ... but you might want to note that Posse Comitatus was passed as the iron fist began to be relaxed and a separation between military control of the states (and local government) and civilian control was finally being turned over to people who actually grew up and lived in the South.  Though it was not centralized, the South suffered through a pretty strict military dictatorship until well after 1876.

Meanwhile, the railroads (and their partners in steel and mining) were buying up and controlling everything.  Try to find widespread and common references ... historical, literary, cultural, artistic, theatrical, or anything else for that matter ... to "middle-class" families or a growing and important middle class anywhere from the period between 1870 and 1950.  This is not to say that a professional class and a class of small shop owners did not exist during this period ... of course it did.  But that is not who elected representatives to Congress (or even to city hall) or who had the greatest influence in writing and making legislation.  Seriously.  Think about it.  You will read a lot about inventions and technological innovation, industrial expansion and even homesteading (as close as you will come to a yeoman farmer population with a stake in home ownership).  There were Indian Wars (suppression and oppression of the indigenous population whose land we took) and a great deal of talk about "Manifest Destiny" and the Westward Movement.  But even the folks moving west had to form cooperative organizations (granges, for one) to try to force the railroads (and their buddies in steel and mining) to grant them any voice over what happened to the crops they grew.  And don't talk about the men and women who worked in the mines, textile industries, steel factories, or on the railroads.  If they dared make a noise about the rotten hours, dangerous working conditions, low pay, or even the brutal fact that their CHILDREN were forced to work alongside them (I won't talk about owing your soul to the company store ... those words did not appear out of thin air!) the Federal Government was called in to shoot the "troublemakers" on sight ... and they used the Sherman Anti Trust Act, of all things, to murder workers trying to better their lives.

The great success of Franklin Roosevelt (and those who followed him until Reagan) was that he saved capitalism from itself ... he saved it from either a socialist revolution or a state-socialist/corporatist revolution.  He did that primarily by ending the excesses of wealth and power given to the upper classes in that period between 1870 and 1929 (that year, incidentally, marks a clear benchmark for the end of the rule by trusts, Big Business, the tycoons of industry, the "Gilded Age" or whatever else you want to call it) and by growing a very strong middle class.  There was, as I stated above, essentially no middle class prior to 1932.  "The business of government is business" also was not an idle quote invented by Calvin Coolidge out of thin air ... it was a perfectly clear expression of the times and the beliefs of Americans (those who held power, anyway).  Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson or James Madison saying such a thing?

Government supported work-projects, incredibly high personal income taxes (90% and higher), wage & price freezes, support for the middle-class building unionization of the American work force, free public education (Kindergarten to college), the GI Bill, and a whole slew of policies (financial, social, political) created the largest middle class the world has ever known.  Excesses in that direction over a half a century ... combined with international uncertainty and growing expectations for social change in this country led to a strong reaction from people in the middle class (especially in the south and the heartland) who began to feel a very strong squeeze from all those folks who had been left out of the great Middle Class Awakening and were trying to pry the doors even wider.

Ronald Reagan was a genius (or, rather, his handlers were ... Reagan himself was darned good at reading the scripts they provided for him, and even riffing off of them, impromptu, when the circumstances called for it ... though, like George W. Bush, his handlers grew quite nervous whenever Reagan spoke extemporaneously, as he was likely to say something awful dumb and stupid).  They were the folks who had chafed under the New Deal and had never come to terms with it ... and wanted nothing more than to reassert the rightful place of the wealthy ruling class at the top of American society.  They pounced on the racial and social fears and uncertainties that many Americans felt while society rapidly changed around them (black liberation, the student movement, women's liberation, rock-n-roll, drugs, gays were coming out of the closet, even the poor and homeless were getting more attention than they were!), and they preyed on fears created by ever-present international conflict and the looming threat of global nuclear war (most of those fears and conflicts were manufactured, of course ... by both Dems and Republicans ... because fear of a common enemy is a good way to unite people under your leadership).

The truth of the matter is that government did not work very well between 1870 and 1930.  It did not work very well on purpose.  It was kept weak and hamstrung, or it was used by the ruling economic elite to get what it wanted.  The ONLY "progressive" or "liberal" changes that took place during this period were not introduced by the ruling elite -- either Democrats (most "Republican lite") or Republicans -- but came out of the struggles from family farmers, farming communities, or the growing working class.  They were not willfully introduced, either ... but came about only because flat out pitched battles took place, and more were on the horizon unless some concessions were made.  The eight-hour day, forty-hour work week, laws restricting child labor, the recall/initiative/referendum process, women's suffrage, direct election of Senator, and a whole slew of other things we now take for granted came from the various and successive Progressive Parties that popped up all across the west and in the northeast.

And today, because of the Ronald Reagan administration (and all subsequent presidents, including that of Bill Clinton), government again does not work very well for common Americans.  Really poor Americans are tossed a pittance to keep them quiet and out of the streets ... but only reluctantly, with a great deal of animosity and chagrin, and tons of mumbling about "dependence" and "taking my hard-earned savings".  The rest of us have watched our income actually shrink over the past 30 years ... the "good life" we live is based primarily upon incredible levels of debt and borrowing ... and all the interest and earnings have been transferred to the top 2% of the population.

Those are facts, Jack.  You say they are bull.  So contradict them, show me where the analysis is incorrect.  And, by the way, I am a registered Democrat.  I am neither dumb nor ignorant, I just say things that contradict the fairy tales that you seem to believe (which I must qualify with that word "seem", since you offer not one whit or bit of evidence to support your contentions ... which amount to nothing more than calling me names).  Nor am I envious ... I do not envy wealth because there is more to life than the possessions they can purchase and more to the world than owning as much of it as possible.  I do not envy the power that wealth brings, nor the hypocritical way in which people with power often use it.  I do not envy those things, in the slightest ... I chose a professional career that allowed me to provide service to my community.  Salary and benefits were a minor concern because I find intrinsic satisfaction (a form of wealth to those wise enough to understand what I mean) in doing my job well, and in benefitting the people whom I serve.  On the other hand, I can say with great confidence that ignorance and envy are the raw materials with which people seeking political power play and build their empires -- Democratic, Republican, Progressive, People's Working Party, Aryan Nation ... you name it.

So ... show me your independent spirit and your ability to solve problems.  Show me your keen intelligence and your analytic skills.  Prove to me that you can stand up to any petty tyrant and argue with them intelligently.  I dare you.

I asked you to "show me your independent spirit and your ability to solve problems.  Show me your keen intelligence and your analytic skills.  Prove to me that you can stand up to any petty tyrant and argue with them intelligently."

After reading your response, I think you failed miserably in that challenge.  A couple of examples will suffice (though I was tempted to go through and refute all of your baseless claims):

• "Its [sic] the same tired and flawed talking points of a typical leftwing whackjob."

… I ask: which parts were "tired" and flawed" … and in what way are they incorrect?

• "You've made it very clear of wanting a piece of the "success" of the wealthy because " hey they didn't earn it or exploited me for it" or some other bull[bleep]..."

… I say: this certainly is not a quote, nor a reference to any "tired and flawed" talking point that I made, because I have never said such a thing.

 • "I am sure the banks forced you to take out loans and borrow money or over-charge credit cards you knew couldn't pay back"

   Again, I am not sure how this is a "tired or flawed" talking point, nor do I understand how this is an articulate criticism of anything I said (or have ever said, for that matter).  No bank has ever forced me to take out a loan and I have never over-charged my credit cards; I am one of those intelligent and rule-obeying borrowers who tell the truth on my credit applications, never borrow more than I cannot afford to pay, have never had anything repossessed, and pay my credit-card balances in full each month.  Now, a point that I HAVE made, but which you obviously do not make reference to (making us wonder about your analytic and discussion skills) is that financial institutions, financial "experts" (including, if you watch the Daily Show with John Stewart, Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli), and the entire (falsely iconic) credit market-place upon which our economy is built (a deck of card, a foundation of sand) tells everyone how strong our economy is (the past president and the Republican candidate for president continued to insist such was the case even AFTER the crash occurred).  For years they have told us how "safe" it is to invest in it (they even wanted to privatize ALL retirement accounts through Wall Street, remember?).  They even went so far to acknowledge that there might be risks, but not to worry because the market was so strong than ANY investment – even those that failed – would still return your initial investment.  While there most definitely were speculators in the housing market, and there clearly has been a HUGE problem of people misunderstanding how credit works (in large part fueled by lenders themselves, who amongst other things make pre-approved credit cards available to third graders, for God's sake), the truth is that buying upper middle-class status symbols by making only the minimum monthly payment (suggested BY the credit card companies) is a pervasive practice enshrined for all time during the Reagan administration.  Carrying and then amassing debt is the essential foundation upon which our economic system is built, because it feeds on the false (and unethical) belief that growth and expansion is infinite.

• "… when the time came to pay the bills, "oh they are exploiting me"...do you really believe that?"

… First, Eric, let's have some truth in advertising.  I did not say that.  YOU said it.  You, in fact, made it up and then put those words in my mouth.  In discussion, we call this a "straw-man argument".  So, in the future, if you want to continue this discussion, limit your comments to my actual statement, expand them to include what other people say (that's always fun) … but make sure to attribute them to the actual person or people who actually said it.  And do not put words in my mouth.  In regards to the issue of exploitation … capitalism is built on exploitation.  Those with capital must exploit those without it … to make a profit, they must always charge more than an item or service is worth (it's worth is determined by the cost of the materials and the labor that goes into producing it).  They can inflate the price they charge over its value (which exploits the purchaser), they can cut corners in how they collect and/or transport the materials (usually by exploiting the labor of those gather and/or transport the raw materials), or they can pay those who labor something less than their labor is worth (exploiting the worker … the traditional Marxist argument).  In terms of credit and market-places, taking advantage of suckers is also a cornerstone of the capitalist system.  Oh sure, there are shrewd buyers and clever people negotiate and barter over price … but give me a break, you can't tell me you've never heard that foundational capitalist phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute"?  You've never marveled at the ability of Madison Avenue (as we used to call the advertising liars) to create a need that never existed before?

So I'll stop there with the direct quote … as the rest of your post essentially continues to operate at the same generally vague level of misrepresentation, misquoting, and straw-man argumentation.  Remember, I asked you for evidence and fact to support your argument.  I see none.

Instead, I'll leave you with the following ideas to consider.  Contrary to your false assumptions, I am a firm advocate of innovation, creativity, and small entrepreneurship.  The guy who goes out in his garage and invents a computer is a marvel, and we need more of them.  Unfortunately, even this incredibly talented type of individual loses his credibility when he steals from other developers (as Bill Gates did from Steve Jobs), and then uses his ill-gotten gains to corner the market and drive other hard-working, inventive people out of it.  This is why regulation of the market place is essential, and only government can provide the rules and the environment in which fair competition can take place.

Your understanding of history … which I attempted to enlighten in my last post … is woefully narrow and inaccurate.  Anyone can copy a couple passages out of context made by a famous person and then throw them into their argument for the sake of impressing others (the fact that google puts such famous sayings at our fingertips only makes it easier … as does the presence of blathering bloggers who exercise hardly a whit of academic rigor to their "research", but whose sayings and screechings get passed, like the game "Operator", from user to user until no one any longer knows where the original though came from.  For your information, there has never been a communist government in the history of the planet, but there are quite a few very successful socialist (or quasi-socialist) states, and even more countries that utilize a blend of capitalism and socialism.  In point of fact, the U.S. is an example of the latter, though our "socialism" is mostly applied to the kings of industry and to the corporate elite (state socialism) rather than to the population as a whole, so we have a ways to go before we really can be considered "socialist".  Socialism is a democratic system of government that utilizes a collaborative and cooperative economic system.  I suspect that the failed socialist states to which you refer are, more correctly, tyrannies or totalitarian states operating under the guise of socialism (in name only … like so many "democracies" around the world run by tin-horn military juntas).  Educate yourself, and then criticize the things that justly should be criticized rather than making stuff up and showing how unschooled you are.

As you say, our Founding Fathers were indeed "well aware of the dangers of this collective, group thinking and purposefully limited and restricted the government."  They did, in fact, limit and restrict the powers of government … mostly by building in a system of checks and balances between the three main branches of government, requiring certain majorities to enact specific types of law or policy, and essentially trying to assure that an idea was pretty thoroughly explored and vetted (so that general consensus could be reached) before being enshrined as law.  Our government purposefully works slowly, as planned.  Specific things that government can do are iterated, as well.  But … and I will gladly acknowledge an error if you can point it out to me … the Constitution says not a thing about how large government can (or should) be, or that it should not exist to serve the people of the United States (i.e., establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty … protecting inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness … and so on).  In the same spirit, our Founding Fathers also limited and restricted the powers of business and corporations … they left such decisions as reserved powers for the states, but that is because we had rebelled against a corporate state (at least, from the undo influence that a global corporation could exert over a weak government) and everyone clearly understood that corporations were to be limited in size, scope, and activity.

A flat tax is not a fair tax, and most rational people have understood this since at least the Civil War.  A progressive tax (a graduated tax if the word "progressive" rubs you the wrong way) is not accepted by everyone, of course (you being but one example), but for most people who recognize the fairness of a graduated tax, it is the rate at which different incomes are taxed that is the issue, not the tax itself.  I would agree that the income tax should be simplified.  If you do not want to live in a society surrounded by poverty (or those inconvenient people who are poor), then work to find a way to end it.  I don't think it can be done, myself … but who knows, you may be the guy who has that innovative means to accomplish that goal.  In the meantime, if we are going to be surrounded by poverty, there are many things we can do to try to alleviate it:  we can create more jobs so as many people as possible actually have jobs and therefore aren't as poor; we can take a little from those who have a lot and spread that little around to those who don't have much, so they can at least meet their basic needs for survival; we and take even less from everyone who has some, and then spread it around (as above), knowing that people who have something are less likely to do bad things than those who have nothing and are desperate; or we can shunt all the poor off to remote or unpleasant places where we can hide them and don't have to have them in our faces every day.  I, personally, opt for the two middle options … but would gladly live in a society where everyone could find useful work that enables them to contribute to everyone else's benefit.