Ramona's picture

    Why Do we Plebians keep blaming the Super-rich? Because, Dammit, They're to Blame

    We're an odd bunch, we Americans.  We've had a hate-hate relationship with the very rich for as long as we've existed as a country, but, damn their black hides, we can't stop taking care of them.

    After all these years we've become used to sparring with the super-rich over how much they get to keep and how much they should share.  They want to keep it all, and we know that.  We want them to behave like responsible citizens, and they don't think they should have to.

    It's a long-standing battle, but it was infinitely fairer when they needed us as much as we needed them.  Most of them built their fortunes while still being Americans in America, by being major forces in the building of the strongest, richest country in the world. Now there is almost nothing American about the major corporatists, but we still insist on treating them as if they were a part of us.  We can't help ourselves.  We cling to our nationalism, to our sense of superiority, and even after decades of sliding downhill, of watching our resources leave our shores for parts unknown, we can't believe our industry, our infrastructure, our wealth, is gone.  We refuse, in fact, to believe it, even though our roads, our bridges, our buildings, our very way of life, is crumbling around us.

    We are slow to learn.  It's one of our least likable traits. As our factories and our mills closed, one by one, we heard over and over that we would be stronger as a nation if we adjusted to becoming a service economy.  Many of us knew a scam when we saw one, and protested mightily.

    A service economy meant only one thing:  The many would be serving the few, with no real rewards for the many. If we stopped building things, we would be dependent on other less stable economies for our goods.  We would lose an entire sector of workers without making provisions for a new kind of labor.  If wages went down--or became non-existent--our tax base would shrivel, as well.

    So what did we do?  We went along.  We rewarded the super-rich, those vainglorious bastards who shipped our jobs and our wealth out of the country, not just by cutting their taxes to bare bones, but by treating them as whole-cloth Americans while they turned their backs on us and refused to do anything more for our country than live here.

    We really should have known better, but once again, we've let big money nearly destroy us.  They've grown stronger, thanks to us, and now they've invaded our lives, right down to choosing the politicians most likely to let the super-rich maintain the status quo.

    These are not the Rockefellers or the Vanderbilts--the money people who, ruthless and greedy as they were, hauled us into the industrial age and built this country, brick by brick.  They wanted it all, too, but at least they knew to keep it within our shores. They weren't above buying politicians in their day, but their power only went so far.  They were rich but their riches didn't own us for decades on end.

    Now it does.  It buys politicians and courts and it buys silence.  It buys respect where respect is not deserved.  And we're growing poorer and shabbier every day.  We're a shadow of our former selves while the stockpiles of the very rich have grown beyond their wildest dreams--and our wildest imaginations.

    They don't need us.  They don't want us.  And as long as we keep insisting that everything's gonna be all right, the super-rich will be alive and doing exceedingly well in America.

    As for the rest of us--we'll be exactly where they want us.

    (Read the article in Truthout that prompted this. It's an issue that needs to be up front and on our minds come the next election cycle. If we stop blaming them we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.)


    Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices and at Alan Colmes' Liberaland



    Nice write-up. The only thing I'd disagree with is that I'm quite certain that if the Rockefellers or Vanderbilts could have done what our current mega-rich are doing, they would've done so as well.

    Sure, they would have--and did.  But the difference is that while they were making money they were building the infrastructure of this country.  Once we stopped building things here, we stopped growing.

    Now the super-rich are just out to make money and very little of it sifts back to us.     We can't keep protecting the rich, pretending we need them to keep afloat, when all they really do is drag us down.

    Today's plutocrats are certainly more global than the old industrial titans, but don't kid yourself. They are not nearly as powerful.

    A century ago, capital was more concentrated in the hands of very few men, the political parties were far more corrupt, and the government was far smaller and weaker. These conditions did indeed last for decades on end--from the 1870s to the 1940s.

    There are no powerful individuals like John D Rockefeller, but I'd say that as a class, they certainly have the government's ear, nose and throat. Influence-peddling has been essentially legalized, so who really needs corruption?

    It's not on the same scale, I promise you. In those days, it was relatively easy to buy a party nominee. You just paid off the local political boss, and he arranged the nomination. There were no primaries before 1900, only caucuses, which were notoriously corrupt. General elections were a bit cleaner, but most states and cities were dominated by a single party. In short, the plutocrats owned the bosses, and the bosses owned the politicians.

    Obviously, political donations are still tremendously influential, money does not guarantee a nomination--as the Republican business establishment has discovered to its chagrin.

    As George Carlin said, we're still dominated by one party - the Property Party - and it has two right wings.

    Yes, you're right, but the captains of industry were putting back, too.  Without their ideas and ingenuity we couldn't have grown to be the most powerful country in the world.  Their greed did considerable damage and, of course, they fought against anything that might keep them from gathering more riches, but they built this country.  Whether or not it was their intent, they gave us a labor base that developed into a strong middle class.  We don't have that anymore, and probably never will again.

    The labor base only developed into a strong middle class after the 1940s, when the plutocrats declined. Prior to that, workers were generally very poor and very exploited. It was akin to what multinationals do in third world countries these days, but it was in our own country.

    Thank you for that reminder.

    I often think about how the war effort may be what really showed the "power" or value, of labor, more than the union movement. Because it taught "the oligarchy" the amazing things labor could do if motivated, how important it was.  But then that was both good and bad, because it started the emphasis on productivity thingie? Feel free to disabuse me of these thoughts..because I didn't get them from any research or anything like that, just throwing them out there.

    I don't know that era very well, but I'm a little skeptical of your hypothesis. I would attribute the post-war effect to the New Deal combined with a tight labor market.

    And communism. The business community's response to the New Deal and the communism it represented to them was something they called Welfare Capitalism. I bumped into the phrase in a 1949 Life Magazine editorial advocating it.  It argued that employees should look to their beneficent employers to provide old age pensions, healthcare, etc. instead of the government. Guess what. They won. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed they no longer had any rationale to even pretend to care about employee benefits.

    I have not been able to find much on it but it did begin as a policy proposal much earlier possibly in the era you are researching. Seen anything on it?


    Never heard of it, but it sounds interesting. I know that one of TR's rationales for pushing progressive policies in the early 1900s was to avoid a socialist uprising.

    True again, but the industries they built were the turning point.  My point is that while they magnificently maintained their reputations as greedy bastards, they still kept most of their money here and, more important, they didn't stop building. 

    After the war, they needed us.  And we needed them.  It was a stormy relationship but it was a relationship.  Now they've divorced us--hooked up with someone else and left us with nothing.  But they still want to crawl into our beds. 

    (Something like that.)

    That I can agree with. But that's not because the old plutocrats were more patriotic. Multinational corporations just weren't very feasible in the days before airplanes, computers, transatlantic phone lines, and supertankers.

    Moreover, wages were abysmal, strikes illegal, and worker protections non-existent. They didn't need Bangladeshi factories. They had Bangladeshi factories in New York City, complete with the equivalent of a Bangladeshi workforce--Italians, Poles, etc. Add in import tariffs as high as 50 percent to keep out foreign competition, so domestic production was much more profitable than it is today. In short, building locally was low-cost and high-margin. Investing domestically was a no-brainer.

    As for international tax havens, we had no corporate taxes and no income taxes, so what was the point? The U.S. was a tax haven.

    Move forward to postwar.  The 1950s, say.  The sweat shops were, for the most part,  gone. (The textile mills in the South were still vying for that honor) Child labor was gone.  The unions were strong, factories were still being built and freeways were criss-crossing the country, ready to move us and our vast supplies of goods to far away places.

      We were creating a huge middle class, our public school system (except for the south) was a fine one, and we were moving on up to the top of the world.  And the rich, bless their black hearts, were still rich. 

    We're poorer now, with no earthly chance to ever be what we once were, and the rich are so rich even they can't believe it.  They're so rich they own our entire country and possibly parts of a few others.  So who's to blame?

    That's something everyone loves to argue about, and what they answer invariably depends on their political persuasion.

    My perspective, no "one" is to blame. I don't believe in scapegoats. In the 1950s, Europe was in shambles, Asia was still in hibernation, new technologies were exploding, and educational opportunities were expanding. It was an economic golden age, and we had little competition. A come-down was inevitable, especially when all that new technology made it cheaper and easier to manufacture internationally.

    And in the end, it doesn't really matter "who done it." The question is how do we improve the situation, and frankly, no one on either end of the political spectrum has a good answer for that. Higher taxes and higher wages would help with our income equality, and I'm all for such policies, but they won't restore American industry. Browbeating plutocrats for being greedy and unpatriotic certainly won't change anything.

    There are policy steps we can take to encourage domestic industry and discourage foreign outsourcing, and we should employ them, but they aren't panaceas. Apple, for instance, is facing tough competition from Samsung. We can try to discourage them from manufacturing in China, but then iPhone prices goes up, and Samsung wins.

    My only idea is to keep innovating. Technological innovation has long been our greatest advantage over the copycats of the world. Our educational system favors creativity, our financial system rewards risk takers, our government supports research.

    But one unfortunate side-effect of this formula is that encourages plutocrats. The richest people in America are the founders of technology companies and those who finance them. Catch-22, I suppose.

    Placing blame isn't scapegoating.  I'm all for placing blame where it fits, and in this case the blame goes squarely on the super-rich.  They planned this, they paid for it, and they're reaping the benefits.  They rape our land, they buy our politicians, they outsource our jobs, they create a culture where minimum wage is the norm for the masses, and they twist the knife by convincing whole sectors of our society that cutting off aid for the poor is the ideal budget-balancer.  No food for them!

    How do we fix what has happened to our economy if the perps go on doing what they're doing without fear?  As if what happened just happened and--oh, well?

    It absolutely does matter who done it.  You say there are policy steps that could be taken to encourage domestic industry, for example, but how does that happen when the 1% own us?  Will you be the one to appeal to their good graces and hope they'll finally see that they need to be nicer to us? 

    You can come up with a thousand outlying reasons for our downslide, but the bottom line, the one truth that stops us from moving forward, is that we're now owned by rich and powerful private interests.  They worked hard to get to such heights and they aren't about to give up without a fight. 

    So how do we get around them to keep innovating and rebuild again?  Our technological talents, our imaginations, will only get us so far if we don't recognize that we're dealing with people who will only let us do what they want to let us do.

    I humbly suggest that blaming a class of people for a nation's problems is the essence of scapegoating.

    So let's turn to the individuals shall we? Who are the 20 richest Americans, and what did they do the country?

    1. Bill Gates. Microsoft was a great place to work during his tenure, and he has done wonders for U.S. tech. Spends his money curing diseases in Africa, but its hard to fault him for that. Guilty of anti-competitive practices, though.

    2. Warren Buffett. Pretty benign as investors go, wants to raise income taxes on the rich.

    3. Larry Ellison. Oracle is another big, well-run tech company.

    4-5. Koch Brothers. No contest.

    6-9. Waltons. Wal-mart is horrible for service workers and small retailers, and it indirectly contributed to manufacturing declines by buying low-cost from Asia. No contest.

    10. Michael Bloomberg. I've got some complaints about his mayoral tenure, but his company is one of the best places to work in the country.

    11. Sheldon Adelson. Another conservative bastard, but his global gambling empire doesn't have much to do with America's industrial issues.

    12. Jeff Bezos. Amazon is another great place to work. Bad for brick-and-mortar stores but good for small manufacturers who sell online.

    13-14. Larry Page & Sergey Brin. Google is an even better employer than Bloomberg and Amazon. Huge American success.

    15-17. Mars family. Still make most of their candy in U.S. Also a nice place to work. Who knew?

    18. Charles Icahn. Ruthless investor. Not a great guy, but not exactly responsible for American decline.

    19. George Soros. I suppose that he's "divorced" from ordinary Americans in that he considers himself a citizen of the world (not to mention Hungaria- born). But he's also an uber-liberal, and spent millions to try to unseat G.W.

    20. Mark Zuckerberg. A bit of a jerk, but Facebook is another a nice place to work.

    So there you go. The top 20 "perps" responsible for destroying America. Some big bastards in there, no question, but not exactly the Pluto-Borg you make them out to be.

    Where did you get your list?  I would guess Forbes.

    Funny though, I was just playing around over at Bloomberg Billionaires interactive. Its current rankings are very close to yours with one major exception. I don't see Bloomberg there at all. surprise Doesn't seem right that his news service should leave someone that rich out.

    Even so, look at your list. How much of it is enduring wealth? The Mars, Walton and Koch families are good bets to last another generation or so. The others' wealth is too new. It is based either on rapidly changing technologies, financial luck or gambling but most of all on the unique abilities single individuals. Whether any of them will be leave a long-lasting fortune like Rockefeller or have it all but disappear in three generations like Vanderbilt is still an open question.

    Personally, I hope their fortunes go the way of Vanderbilt's. I agree with you that the today's super rich are not a big problem. It is the heirs to great fortunes past with their money-manager minions that are wreaking havoc on our present day economy.




    You ignore the role of the American dream of immigrant parents hoping their children would not have to work with their backs and their hands, but would be able to go to college and have a different kind of job.

    I ignored it?  In what way?  How would it fit in my piece?

    How would it fit in my piece? Here:

    As our factories and our mills closed, one by one, we heard over and over that we would be stronger as a nation if we adjusted to becoming a service economy.

    Nobody forced that, it was the desire of many many Americans for the following generations. The G.I. bill encouraged it, but the desire was already there for future generations to leave the farm and the factory and the construction jobs (and even old-world artisan jobs in some cases) behind.

    Edit to add: I would also argue that many of the FDR generation are still happy about that. Not only are they glad that their kids don't have to work in the factory or farm, but many still seem quite happy with having the great availability of overseas goods at low-cost overseas-labor prices than were available when much more was American made under union labor. They are pleased with the resulting lifestyle, changed from their young family years, where a washing machine or television took years of saving and that they can get now get fleece jackets for $10 rather than like, $50. Not to mention things like inexpensive seedless grapes available all year long...Chinese buffets....

    Nobody forced that, it was the desire of many many Americans for the following generations.

    Not in Michigan it wasn't.

    I am worried about you Ramona.

    You are getting as angry as me and we do not need super angry women. hahashahahahah

    Or maybe we really do!

    I LOVE THIS RANT. hahahahahahah

    Oh, but we do.  We do need super angry women.  And super angry men.  We need them to focus and fix this.  Because if we don't there's no point in bothering with anything else.  We'll be done as a society, and as a country, and any other effort will have been irrelevant.

    Long standing battle for sure.

    Theodore Roosevelt's 8th annual message to Congress, Feb. 1909:

    "The Central Government is the only power which, without oppression, can nevertheless thoroughly and adequately control and supervise the large corporations........Let those who object to this increase in the use of the only power available, the national power, be frank, and admit openly that they propose to abandon any effort to control the great business corporations and to exercise supervision over the accumulation and distribution of wealth.....

    The danger to American democracy lies not in the least in the concentration of administrative power in responsible and accountable hands. It lies in having the power insufficiently concentrated, so that no one can be held responsible to the people for its use. Concentrated power is palpable, visible, responsible, easily reached, quickly held to account. Power scattered through many administrators, many legislators, many men who work behind and through legislators and administrators, is unseen, is irresponsible, cannot be reached, cannot be held to account."

    Yes, Teddy was a force to be reckoned with.  The Fat Cats had reason to fear him.  But Michael W. should weigh in on this one.  He's the Teddy expert.

    This is a issue that is being discussed quite a bit now on other threads.  I just a read a long thread that was going over the how the 1993 Medicare Recovery Act is applied to people over the age of 55.  The ending point was we work very hard in this county, and the most productive of any first world country.  But we are expected to pay back at our death from any assets we have left behind for the care Medicare paid for when we were ill.  We are the only industrialized country that expects it's workers to give up everything to get subsidized care when we need it, but we don't ask corporations that are subsidized to pay back that money. Hence the wealthy banks that money and then complains about a death tax that don't takes all their assets.  So what it does is creates a perpetual underclass.  No other first world country makes their people to do this.  How unfair our system has become in favor of the wealthy and people are becoming ready for it to change.  I think the ACA will be the tipping point to force change and fairness for everyone. 

       A lot of Americans don't hate the rich. And quite a few resent the poor, instead.

    About the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy... I wonder if the problem isn't that, for good reason, a lot of people wanted to get off of the assembly lines, away from the docks and certainly out of the fields of food production.  Compared to that work, the nice management job seemed a much better deal.  Get me behind a desk, or dealing with clients, you know -- a job with air conditioning and minimal physical risk.  The problem is, as you say, that bargain has a dark side and one of them is the huge amount of power ceded to the upper crust.  Not sure where I'm going with this, really.  It's frustrating.

    Of course parents want their children out of the factories and farms. And sure young adults would rather get behind a desk. But that just often doesn't work out and it never will. Only 30% of adults have a bachelor's degree. That's a record high. Manufacturing left this country because of free trade agreements and the simple fact that American labor can't compete with workers that make less in a day than our workers make in an hour.

    The majority of our adult population would love to have a job in manufacturing given the alternatives.

    I think the figures miss the trends - during the 1950's, the heyday of manufacturing, about 50% of Americans had high school degrees - now it's almost 90%. Bachelors for 25+ is at 31% (a few points higher for 25-29), but there's another 10% or so with Associate Degrees and special trade ceritifications - and CNN has run a few articles noting that these quite frequently get paid more than bachelors (conclusions seem a bit misleading). It seems there's quite a bit of demand for these moderately trained white collar jobs, and of course the cost of an AB is a lot less than a bachelors. If you look at the BLS job growth projections over the next 7 years, here's probably quite a bit that can be done with a 2-year-degree, esp. for health care & social assistance (whether those are "desk jobs" or active moving around...). Don't see a lot of manufacturing & farm growth in there.


    Isn't it nice to have a small group that you can hate unreservedly, and blame for everything that goes wrong.  Maybe now you can begin to understand the age-old attractions of anti-Semitism.

    If you are going to compare the above list to anti-Semitism, should people equate the racism and misogyny coming from Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party members to the KKK?

    I don't know enough about the KKK to answer.  I think the KKK was about suppressing the political rights of Negroes.  If that is correct, whose political rights would you say the "Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party members" are suppressing?  Convicted felons?  Illegal aliens?

    As expected, you ignore the voter purges going on in multiple states with the specific intent of keeping minority voters from casting votes. This is a fixture of the modern GOP. II has intensified since the Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court gutted Section V of the Voting Rights Act. Many Conservatives activists admit that they want to suppress minority votes. Some are more blunt than others. I simply do not believe that you are unaware of GOP-led voter purges.

    In the Civil Rights era, many in the general community sat back as White Citizen's Councils and the Klan kept minorities from the polls. They would later argue that they were unaware of what occurred In the Internet era, there is no plausible deniability is no longer possible. GOP voters are willing to tolerate the voter suppression.

    This is not about felons.

    I'm assuming you are blissfully unaware of legalized rape  vaginal probe laws as well?

    Because I made a comment indirectly indicating concern for Ramona's immortal soul, you decided that I'm a GOP apologist.  I'm not.

    Concerning the Civil Rights era, I was around then and slightly tangentially involved.  The marches were very heavily publicized, appearing on the covers of newsmagazines and in the daily television news. Nobody was unaware.

    I don't see anything in the US at the moment that resembles the Civil Rights movement.  What I see are the posturings of professionally outraged charlatans cashing in on the goodwill left by the movement.

    The Civil Rights movement achieved a lot of good, but it failed to stop racism.  As proof, look at the election of Barack Obama.  He was not chosen for the content of his character, but for the colour of his skin.  Crow Jim is just as racist as Jim Crow.

    Yes, I am unaware of GOP-supported vaginal probe/rape laws.  Sounds pretty unlikely to me.  I think it's more likely that you are crazy.  If you want to back up your claim, try including a link.  Why should I do your homework?

    Maybe you're not so crazy after all:  a recent well-publicized case of anal rape was committed by the legal authorities in Mew Mexico.  There are links here


    and here


    The authorities involved are under the administration of a Democrat named Barack Obama.

    Yes, I am unaware of GOP-supported vaginal probe/rape laws.  Sounds pretty unlikely to me.  I think it's more likely that you are crazy.  If you want to back up your claim, try including a link.  Why should I do your homework?

    No, MRD isn't crazy;  more likely you're just woefully--or possibly deliberately--misinformed.

    Here you go.   And here.  And many, many more.  But you'll have to look for them yourself.  It won't be hard to do.

    Thank you, Ramona, for the links.  The second one didn't seem to have any relevance, but the first was useful.

    I'm sure you know more about this than me, but I thought ultrasound was the accepted method for determining the size and location (and even existence) of the foetus, which any responsible abortionist would need to know.  The alternatives, (e.g. x-rays), are more dangerous.

    It seems odd that there should need to be government intervention to force a procedure that would be used anyway. Maybe you're right that anti-abortionists are trying to add stress to an already stressful situation.   I guess abortion is so sensitive an area that the government can't resist putting in its two cents' worth.

    Isn't government intervention into the doctor/patient relationship the whole point of Obamacare?

    Ugh, that is right you don't know anything about, since you are man and not a woman, you don't even know there is a difference between a pelvic and transvaginal ultrasound. A pelvic ultrasound is used when a woman is pregnant. A transvaginal ultrasound is used to see organs like the vagina, ovaries and pelvic wall. It is unusual that any physician would order a transvaginal ultrasound over a pelvic ultrasound when a woman is pregnant, unless there are other medical complications. Here are the cases where a physician would order a transvaginal ultrasound:


    • an abnormal physical exam
    • to check for cysts or fibroids
    • Unexplained vaginal bleeding
    • pelvic pain
    • an ectopic pregnancy


    If you are pregnant a physician might order a transvaginal ultrasound for a few reason, but not for simply dating and measuring the fetus.


    • to monitor the heartbeat of the fetus, if medically necessary
    • to observe the cervix for changes in order to prevent a miscarriage
    • examine the placenta for bleeding
    • diagnose a possible miscarriage

    For legislators to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for what reason, for  no other reason than to make a woman uncomfortable enough to not have an abortion. Well guess what, abortion is simply none of yours or anyone else's business. It isn't the states business, the federal governments business, nor it is the general publics business. This should be between a woman and her physician. Everyone else needs to STFU about it already.

    And as to your last BS line about the government being involved in the doctor/patient relationship, also ugh, I'm sure Sarah Palin misses you on her facebook page peddling BS about ACA. I'm not even going to bother with you on that one, because fighting off right wing talking points is a waste of my fucking time.

    Thank you, Tmac.  We must have been writing at the same time!

    Thank you for taking the trouble to supply this information.

    I don't see Obamacare as government intervention into the doctor/patient relationship as much as intervention into the provider/patient relationship.  The insurance companies have given up any pretense that they're there to actually help ease health care burdens. They dictate who gets help and who doesn't, and they dictate what rates we pay for increasingly inadequate care.  

    Our rates aren't this high because of the government, they're high because the government turned its back on patients, allowing for-profit health care costs to skyrocket and insurance costs to follow suit.

     But on to your other issue: If a doctor performing an abortion sees a need for an ultrasound, that's a private decision between the doctor and the patient.  What we're looking at with mandatory vaginal probes and ultrasounds is slut-shaming.  Punishment.  No other justification makes sense.

    The 'authorities involved' in your asshole probe links were from the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office. If you would bother to read your own linked articles.

    Neither the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office, nor the State of New Mexico, are under the administration, control or supervision of a Democrat named Barack Obama.

    Lurker, you are displaying the typical mindset of an angry low information bigot steeped in a right wing media brainwashed world of delusion and NoBamaZero make believe.

    An aspect you might consider is how much the federal government has militarized local police forces in the last 10 years for SWAT activity, war on drugs, terror, etc. There's much more fed cooperation with locals, for example joint raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, etc. Quite frankly a pig could be president and these trends would continue, including the hostile tase-first, ask later confrontational approach to policing. Our legislators from both parties dont seem thrilled with protecting personal rights vs freaking out on danger. Diane Feinstein was this week's star at emptyWheel for lies and obfuscation.

    I'm glad that you are at least judging me by the content of my character.

    It was the Deming Police Department, not nearby Hidalgo, according to my link.  But that's not important; every crime has to be committed somewhere.

    I thought Narcotics enforcement was supervised by the federal government, and that local police had to follow the guidelines of the Drug Enforcement Authority.  If I was wrong about that, then I take back what I said about Obama in this case.

    Was this a case of a rogue sheriff overstepping the guidelines?  If so, why hasn't he been arrested?  Or, at least, why hasn't he been repudiated by the DEA?

    Can local law enforcement agencies just make up the rules as they go along?  Do anything to anybody?  If they are not under federal supervision, then whose supervision are they under?

    Not the content of your character Lurker, I'm judging you by your right-wing nonsensical talking points. 

    Since no one else has bothered to address this: the methods used to eliminate voting by convicted felons and illegal aliens happen to also suppress votes by people with the same name. So, if all instances of Jose Sanchez (for example) are struck from the list of registered voters, do you think that affects all ethnic groups equally? The instances of actual voter fraud that have been stopped by GOP, if any, are greatly outnumbered by instances of voter suppression, which has been documented in numerous places as a quick Google search will demonstrate. Most of us strongly suspect that the latter is the actual intent of the GOP as indicated not just by their actions (and inactions), but also by their words.

    Are you saying that if there is a felon named Jose Sanchez, all people with that name are struck off the voters list?  It doesn't have to be that way:  that's not the way it happens in other countries.  Why don't you lobby to change the system?

    Latest Comments