Saturday, September 29, 2012

What's Right of "Right"?

We can recite chapter and verse what's wrong with our democracy, and how that wrong has impacted our economy--including our individual economic well-being.


Standing back, I see two major defects in the body politic--a political system that thrives on special interest money, and a concomitant, pervasive sense of helplessness gripping the electorate, an electorate that has struggled in vain to take back the reins of government.
Nowhere has this been made more evident than in the 99%, Occupy Wall Street movements, which sought to bring attention to the wildfire raging across this nation, only to be beat back, derided, and pepper-sprayed for their trouble.
I'm what you'd call--paradoxically--a Realistic-Idealist. I see things as they are, but hold fast to the vision of how they might be.
For all that the two parties hold in common, there's still sufficient differences in their approach to governance--their political philosophies--to vote for one or the other. We know all too well where the two political parties' lines merge, but we fail to acknowledge where those lines diverge.
For example: Republicans are autocratic in their approach to winning and governing. Around 20 states are contemplating, or have passed, some voter-suppression legislation, or have purged their voters' rolls, in an obvious attempt to reduce the number of voters--and potential votes--for the Democratic party, preying on blacks, students, and the elderly.
I like the fire and water analogies. Yet, a "leaky faucet" for some is a deluge for others, and the acrid smell of smoke is already flaring the nostrils of those closest to the fire.
We all agree that, without a major shift of emphasis in this country's political and economic philosophies, this country's future as a superpower is in grave danger.
For now, my plan is to stay politically active. This activity will continue until such time the unthinkable happens--Republicans regain control of Congress and/or the White House.
With the fire growing ever so close, threatening both the house and its contents, it becomes paramount that we salvage what we can while doing what some have suggested--indemnifying ourselves against inevitable losses, while "mak[ing] preparations to escape the flames."
Despite the proximity of the fire, we can still make a difference. We can still salvage some things before the roaring flames are allowed to fully consume the house, but not with a Republican administration.
For example: With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we can salvage the Affordable Health Care Act, the current, hard-won law that Millard Mitt Romney has prioritized to repeal as his first official act as president. The Act, not perfect by most metrics, is still better than what preceded it, although a growing number of Americans are opposed to it, which brings me back to the article, "The 1 Percent's Problem," which suggests that people are hardwired to seek their own self-interest.
I say: People are more interested in “being right” (pun intended), even if it kills them!
As a people, we're becoming more and more preoccupied with our own well-being, and less with the well-being of our neighbors, be it their physical or economic well-being.
The prevailing attitude, encapsulated this way--"I've got mine, get yours"--has entered the mainstream of American thought, perhaps driven by conservative talk radio, and a depressed economy placing strain on social services, as the cost for life essentials outpaces family incomes.
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we can continue our troop draw down in Afghanistan, and foil a potential re-engagement by a hawkish Republican administration, believing that the Obama administration has prematurely abandoned what could be--were we to remain indefinitely in Afghanistan--an indisputable victory.
We can continue to use measures short of war to force Iran to discard its nuclear ambitions, rethink its relationship with Hezbollah, and abandon its supposed plans for the destruction of Israel.
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we can approach our national debt, not with austerity programs only, but with programs that stress economic growth and expansion. We have seen--by taking account of the lack of success of some countries in the Eurozone with austerity--just how ineffective austerity can be in a down economy--plunging these countries once again into the throes of a recession.
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we can end the War on the Poor, as outlined in the Paul Ryan Budget, salvaging Medicare without privatizing it, and strengthening Social Security for future generations without gutting key provisions--allowing a portion of it to be invested in a volatile stock market. 
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we can not only wind down the Afghanistan war (which is now this nation's longest), but bring our bloated defense budget more in line with our current threat assessment, and resist the cry (occasionally by Willard Romney and other saber-rattling Republicans) to keep America strong with an even stronger military, accusing President Obama and his administration of "weakening"
America's  military resolve and readiness.
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we can bring more balance to this nation's Supreme Court, and the entire federal-court system--countering efforts by Republicans to stack the courts with members of their own party and political persuasion.
Realizing that the federal courts are the last recourse for their draconian laws, and their desire to legislate clear political advantages for their party, Republicans have systematically held up court appointments, while packing the courts with members that often support their radical, conservative agenda.
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we move one step closer to clinching a deal for a massive infrastructure project, one that will build new roads, and replace dilapidated and unsafe bridges, while putting back to work construction workers, and contractors, while boosting related businesses.
Economist, Paul Klugman, in his new book, "End This Depression Now," is urging the hiring and rehiring of our nation's first responders--police officers, and firefighters--as well as teachers and nurses--groups that have seen their numbers slashed over recent years, because of a loss of state and local government tax revenues during the housing crisis, and the job-reductions that ensued.
In my city alone, firefighters are receiving pink slips, and fire stations have closed, one that would have responded to a fire at my resident had the need presented itself, requiring now a longer response time.
It's axiomatic, that the Republican-held House--currently spending more days in recess,  than in actual work--won't pass the president's jobs bill, and neither will they introduce any of their own, for fear that a recovering economy--and a sanguine employment outlook--will help the president's reelection bid.
Just as it's the first responsibility of a bureaucracy to survive, Republicans will pass no laws that will put Americans back to work in substantial numbers, as the survival of their party hangs in the balance, as they pin their hopes on a continued sluggish and struggling economy.
If asked, I'm sure Republicans wouldn't call their actions un-American, just good business sense, coupling their interests with that of the American people--saying essentially, "What's good for the party is good for America."
Strangely, many Americans aren't upset with this tactic, as Republicans have managed to spin our economic situation to their advantage—even as they promise further tax cuts for the 1%, the uber-rich "job creators"--pledging to reduce our national debt by downsizing government,  and reducing food stamps, and other safety-net programs for the poor.
We're learning--to our chagrin--that people don't always vote their self interest, but their perception of that self-interest (an interest usually molded by others), and are more incline to adhere to established principles, to be right regardless of cost, than to acknowledge the failure of those ideologies to which they've given their heart and
soul.
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, we might see higher taxes on the rich, the passage of the Buffett Rule, and full funding for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
To be sure, the Act does little to address "too big to fail," and other measures that brought this nation's economy to its proverbial knees. But it's a start and, with a little luck, the law may be strengthen under a Democratic congress.
Frankly, it's time that the 1 % pay their fair share, since many of them, and their children, aren't volunteering to fight the wars waged on their behalf, and on behalf of the military industrial complex, from which some of their wealth is derived, with the military subsidizing the true cost of providing oil to an oil-gluttonous nation, by keeping
shipping lanes open, piracy to a minimum, and masking the true cost of a gallon of gas.
With a Democratic administration, and a supportive congress, the federal government could take the lead in ending the War on Women, and their need for low-cost contraception to keep abortions to a minimum by providing a shield against the assault of sex-crazed men, who feel that condoms reduce the pleasure of sex, and that abortions are the answers in cases where child support may be imposed.
We would see an end to the attacks on Planned Parenthood at the federal level, threats from Willard Romney to bring it down--and hopefully a federal push to squash new Personhood legislation, to honor a woman's right to choose, and to keep Republican control statehouses from prescribing unnecessary medical procedures--transadominal
and transvaginal ultrasounds--and, in the process, coming between doctors and their patients, all in an effort to discourage women considering abortions.
In recent months, the demand for ultrasound technicians has quadruple!
With a Democratic administration and a supportive congress, we would see an end to the incessant wrangling over extending the nation's debt ceiling; we could then put in place sound fiscal policies, and reasonable cuts over time to reduce the debt, restoring the nation's AAA credit rating in the process, while preserving critical programs that would negatively impact the poor and the overall economy were they to be cut.
The Republicans' resistance to raising taxes on the top earners to achieve that end--presumably honoring their pledge to Grover Norquist--places an undue burden on society's most vulnerable members--the poor.  As the economy resists rebounding, the plight of the poor garners less and less empathy from lawmakers, with congressional Republicans squarely blaming the unemployed for their out-of-work status.
With a Democratic administration and a supportive congress, the assault on gays and lesbians will diminish--as will calls for a Constitutional provision outlawing same-sex marriage, threats to reinstate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and promises to enforce DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
As Jesse Jackson has famously said, "We have to keep hope alive."
Although not much of a Jackson fan, the sentiment expressed in that aforementioned statement, captures precisely where this nation now stands--our crossroad, so to speak--that may become our cross if we don't choose wisely.
As the ravenous fire approaches, having consumed everything in its path, we--the American people--will have to decide what possessions are worth saving (since we can't salvage everything)--and what can be allowed to perish along with the house, if it comes to that.
 In "The 1 Percent's Problem," the author says this of "rent seeking" and the "rent seekers":
"In a broad sense, "rent seeking" defines many of the ways by which our current political process helps the rich at the expense of everyone else, including transfers and subsidies from the government, laws that make the marketplace less competitive, laws that allow C.E.O.'s to take a disproportionate share of corporate revenue (though Dodd-Frank has made matters better by requiring a non-binding shareholder vote on compensation at least once every three years), and laws that permit corporations to make profits as they degrade the environment."
Although both parties have had a hand in creating the economic conditions that contribute to the income disparities that face this nation, Republicans--almost single-handedly--have become the party almost exclusively devoted  to "rent seekers," convincing a growing number of the electorate that their personal interests lie with those exploiting the system--the "rent seekers."

12 comments:

Greg L said...

>>>"In a broad sense, "rent seeking" defines many of the ways by which our current political process helps the rich at the expense of everyone else, including transfers and subsidies from the government, laws that make the marketplace less competitive, laws that allow C.E.O.'s to take a disproportionate share of corporate revenue (though Dodd-Frank has made matters better by requiring a non-binding shareholder vote on compensation at least once every three years), and laws that permit corporations to make profits as they degrade the environment."<<<

Hi BD, it’s been a little bit since I’ve been out and about and your post has resulted in my putting in an appearance. A lot of stuff has occurred ove r the past few months and the elections are just right around the corner. By all appearances at this point, it appears that Obama will prevail with a great assist from Romney’s ineptitude and tone deafness. I suspect it will be a rout and I’ve believed that all along. The mid-terms victories were really overstated and the challenge for the republicans was to track back to the middle after going to the extreme right during the first two years of the Obama administration. The changed map and the republican party’s shrinking demographics that were evident in 2008 have remained unchanged notwithstanding the republican victories during the mid-terms and the extreme right tactics don’t have much appeal beyond the republican base. This problem overarches the Romney campaign’s ineptitude and will likely mean victory for Obama in a few weeks. How long his coattails will be in reversing republican gains in the house and senate remain to be seen. I’m not certain how many house or senate seats are up this time around.

As you know, I’m somewhat jaded on politics and political parties generally. I wish I could express the same hope that you express if the democrats are able to combine legislative majorities with a democrat in the White House. Actually, I would love it to be proven to me that my jaded outlook is totally wrong and that the democrats are deserving of my unreserved support and if you’re right, perhaps that will occur. But for me it’s difficult to see positive and relevant leadership going forward given the backdrop of those forces who are driving the politics and the economics in the country i.e. those who’ve you’ve identified as the rent seekers.

Greg L said...

I ran across a very interesting video the other day that I might be posting on later. It was a speech by a former World Bank president James Wolfensohn given to a group of students at either Harvard or Yale. He was telling the students about how the world he grew up in was so markedly different than the world they’ll be dealing with. The main difference was that the fact that the western European countries had roughly80% of the world’s wealth while only constituting a smaller percentage of the world’s population and the rest of the world only had about 20% . He said that ratio was going to change to 35% for western Europe and 65% for the rest of the world as the third world caught up with China, India leading with African bringing up the rear. He was predicting that the big drop off in the percentage of wealth being held by the western world would result in vast economic and social changes.

Upon watching and thinking about this, it’s clear that this sort of change doesn’t occur in isolation and the question arose in my mind as to what possible changes this might portend both politically and economically now. Is there a link between this and “rent seeking”, resource wars, political graft, a lack of investment in infrastructure and education, deregulation, bad trade policies and the host of ills that seem to beset us? Our economic system only works when there’s growth and when there’s no growth, what you get is people quietly bum rushing the lifeboats and for them to do that, all of the things that would have held them back previously have to be removed and there’s no room for helping the people as they try to save themselves. Those projections by Wolfensohn and the World Bank figure into planning for those who seek to retain as much economic power as they can and they’ve concluded that there’s simply not enough to go around. Not only is there not enough to go around, they must raid whatever little the people have (i.e. social security, pensions and etc). This is a global phenomenon.

The question is who will set the fire stop? Do we have a system that’s by, of and for the people? That’s what it’s going to take to beat back the flames and the return the faith of the people to the system.

Black Diaspora said...

Greg, I was only a couple of days away from e-mailing you with my concerns that I hadn't seen you for awhile, concerned that health issues, or something worse, had precluded your presence in cyberspace, and your posting to your blog.

I'm pleased that wasn't the case and that you're fit and whole.

"[T]he challenge for the republicans was to track back to the middle after going to the extreme right during the first two years of the Obama administration."

That they didn't does pose an interesting dynamic, given that Willard continued his continental drift to the far Right by selecting as his running mate, Paul Ryan.

Clearly he felt a need to lock in his Republican bona fides with a "true conservative" on the ticket, one that the Right would much prefer as president, only recently at a rally chanting Ryan's name, compelling Mitt to step in with a correction, "Romney, Ryan, Romney Ryan."

Someone said recently that it wasn't Romney that was losing the race, but the Republican base, given that it had moved so far to Right--dragging their candidates with them--that the party wasn't attractive to moderates and Independents.

I feel that the Republican primary was largely responsible, too, for the slog to the far Right, as the race to represent Republicans became a contest of who could be more conservative, eliciting at one point from Mitt Romney the revelation that he's "severely conservative," shoring up his sagging reputation as, what many on the Right saw him to be, a moderate, and not one to represent conservative values, or fly the Republican banner.

"I'm not certain how many house or senate seats are up this time around."

From what I understand, there are several, and it didn't help matters when Todd Akin, running against Claire McCaskill, contracted foot and mouth disease with his statement regarding rape, where he attempted to distinguish between "real" and "illegitimate rape."

"But for me it’s difficult to see positive and relevant leadership going forward given the backdrop of those forces who are driving the politics and the economics in the country i.e. those who’ve you’ve identified as the rent seekers."

I'm under no illusion as to just how rigged the system, and how beholden politicians are to their various sponsors, be they the Koch brothers on the Right, or George Soros on the Left, who just today, I believe, donated 1.5 million to Obama's SuperPac, Priorities U.S.A., really small potatoes actually--not enough for a bag of supersized fries--considering the money flowing in from billionaires on the Right, Sheldon Adelson pledging millions to RomRy's election hopes, along with 37 others from the Forbes billionaires list.

http://pinterest.com/pcactionfund/mitt-romney-s-billionaire-backers/

Black Diaspora said...

For all the media's attempt to contrast the two parties in terms of having their billionaire donors, I don't believe that Democrats can hold a candle to those on the Right.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0806/leaderboard-support-obama-billioniares-follow-the-money.html

There are reasons why they're doing this--and, at one point, after connecting the dots, I decided I would blog about it, but neglected to.

Notwithstanding the dependence of our national leadership, if Obama is reelected, we will be out of Afghanistan by 2014, at least our military mission there, leaving behind a small contingency of troops and CIA to direct drone attacks into Pakistan, and keep an eye on al-Qaeda who will attempt a resurgence in that region if the Taliban allows it once again.

My fear, as I've said before, is that Romney will extend the war there indefinitely. It's a real money pit for the nation, but a boon for Cheney's Halliburton, and the military industrial complex, who have raked in billions while the nation's deficit has soared.

With Democrats, we stand a chance of overhauling government at the federal level, a chance that's slim to none with Republicans, which the Tea Party wing of the party will press to reduce the deficit, by slashing government outlays around entitlements, and programs to the poor, foodstamps, and Medicaid, sooner than late, and at a time when a contraction of government would severely impact our fragile economic recovery by taking dollars out of circulation, as the Federal Reserve can only do so much to offset the damage that will ensue if such policies are followed--one of austerity, rather than growth.

"Not only is there not enough to go around, they must raid whatever little the people have (i.e. social security, pensions and etc). This is a global phenomenon."

Interestingly, these new economies aren't built on what we would consider true capitalistic models, but ones where government, in the case of China, are major players, as they act practically in partnership with emerging companies in their midst, investing in them heavily at startup, and in a Bain Capital way once they've grown, and expanded.

We can continue to compete for the dwindling world resources, or we can create a world-wide model that follows a new paradigm, where cooperation among nations prevail.

I have an idea how such a model might look, but implementation is always the sticking point, and the rub, and things on planet earth haven't progressed, or retrogressed, sufficiently for nation's to put their self-interest, and their differences, aside to build a world economy rather than national economies that are measured by so many GDP's.

Further, the distrust factor would frustrate efforts to achieve such a high level of trust and confidence.

Global warming just might prove to be the catalyst that brings all this about, as conditions on the planet--Greenland is disappearing--continue to degrade and worsen.

"Do we have a system that’s by, of and for the people? That’s what it’s going to take to beat back the flames and the return the faith of the people to the system."

For too long, the people of the earth have considered the problems that vex them to be political, social, and economical, when it fact they're spiritual--spiritual in the sense that they aren't existential--and will require a shift in values not seen before on this planet, if we're to survive the challenges ahead, and the challenges will be almost insuperable, but not impossible to overcome, provided we accept a simple prescription, "We're All One."

Greg L said...

>>Someone said recently that it wasn't Romney that was losing the race, but the Republican base, given that it had moved so far to Right--dragging their candidates with them--that the party wasn't attractive to moderates and Independents.<<<

That would appear to be so. Check out this article from the American Conservative that questions whether the GOP is still a national party:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-gop-still-a-national-party/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-the-gop-still-a-national-party

The recriminations are already starting and if Romney loses big, the party might be torn apart by the internecine battle surely to come. Rather than change course after 2008, they doubled down on a losing strategy.

Black Diaspora said...

Thanks for the article. It was more hard-hitting than I expected from a conservative Web site.

"Rather than change course after 2008, they doubled down on a losing strategy."

Even as Republicans accused Democrats of class warfare, they employed this strategy almost exclusively, casting a large segment of society as freeloaders, and accusing Democrats of exploiting that character deficiency by promoting policies that would prove attractive to this subset of society just to win their votes.

It's a common theme running through most of their statements--whether it's Constructive Feedback or the Drudge Report.

Greg L said...

I thought that was an excellent article that was totally spot on in its analysis of the republican party. If they lose this time around, there are two choices--reform themselves or pursue some sort of coup. The thing that's particularly vexing is that 30 years of hate talk have produced legions of angry people who can be set off at the least little thing,so the latter course of action can’t be discounted.

There are some legitimate issues that can certainly be raised about the Obama administration, but none of it comes from the right as they only thing they've done is obstruct when they're not calling him a socialist or a Muslim. The real tragedy here is that true diversity of opinion nor the depth and breadth of our democracy is enhanced when one party can be dismissed as fools while the other escapes true scrutiny on the issues of real importance. In group dynamics sometimes it only takes one person acting like an idiot to shape the behavior of an entire group. I think politics works very much the same way; it only takes one party to poison the entire political debate to the great detriment of all.

Black Diaspora said...

"30 years of hate talk have produced legions of angry people who can be set off at the least little thing."

The recent arrest of several ex-military types plotting the assassination of the president, and a coup, attests to just how far some elements on the Right or willing to go to restore White Rule in this country.

Search-engine results using key words such as Obama, and military coup, extend several pages deep, providing further proof that a "coup" has not only been contemplated, but is contemplated, and is not as remote a possibility as some might think at first blush.

Were it to happen, black distrust of the political process will widen the color divide, and set back racial progress several decades, if not a whole century.

"In group dynamics sometimes it only takes one person acting like an idiot to shape the behavior of an entire group."

Very true. These are perilous times, made more perilous for the profound changes that are shaping events--changes around race, and the eventual minoritization (my word) of whites in this country.

"[I]t only takes one party to poison the entire political debate to the great detriment of all."

The problem as I see it revolves around the Right's unwillingness to cede power to the Left.

With an autocratic fervor Republicans have placed party interests above the welfare of this nation, and won't stop until they've wrested power from those in whose grip it now resides, regardless of cost.

How do you kill a Job Corps bill designed to put unemployed military veterans to work, or kill a bill that would end rewarding companies that ship their operations overseas?

Black Diaspora said...

Speaking of "minoritization," the word shows up in a blog article as part of an introduction to a blog entitled, "The Contemporary Condition."

Here's what it has to say, in part, about that "Condition."


"The contemporary world faces several overlapping challenges:
*the challenge climate change poses alike to neoliberal understandings, capitalist priorities, and the future;
*the radically unequal distribution of world resources and possibilities of sustenance;
*new global modes of violence, with new combatants, some not even human;
*new global contingencies, crossings, and a veritable “minoritization” of the world at a faster pace than heretofore that together redefine sovereignty, the nation, and the territorial state;
*new experiences of time that disturb received conceptions of both religion and secularism;
*an intensification of religious conflicts within and across regions alongside and the sense in other circles that a viable response to pressing issues that require positive interactions between adherents of diverse theistic and non-theistic faiths.
*the rise of bellicose minorities in the United States and elsewhere that seek to block progressive reform;
*a growing sense in the academy that complexity theory in the natural sciences could help to redefine and reinvigorate literary theory, philosophy and the human sciences, opening a future in which the tired Kantian division between “the faculties” becomes reconfigured and academics speak more actively and broadly to public issues;
* the awareness that a viable response to any of these issues touches several others as well."

Your pal said...

BD, you pompous dumbass. The champagne corks were popping all over Wall St when they saw that their puppet Obama had successfully finagled his sham measures to supposedly control their plundering. If you weren't such a bigoted black racist, you'd see that.

Instead, you're still whining about slavery. What a clouded mind you have, you dolt.

Black Diaspora said...

Hey, Pal:

I usually flush remarks like yours down the cyberCrapper with the delete button, but this time I'm making an exception: You're just too damn hilarious.

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha

thehc said...

Hey B.D.,
Curiosity led me to check out your site, and I must say, I like your writing style a lot. You make some great points as your prone to do. One comment and one question; I really wish the "99%" would stop calling themselves that. I'm not sure what their support is, but I'm dead sure it's no where near 99%. My guess is it's closer to 47%. (that's meant as a tongue-in- cheek joke.) Now, for the question. How exactly do we pay for continuing down this path of stimulous, subsidies, and no cuts to any of the vast social programs and entitlements? If you combine all the wealth in the Forbes 400 richest people in the U.S. (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/) (and that means EVERYTHING they own, warehouses, stores, trucks, and millions laid off since there will be no more Walmart, McDonalds,etc.) you would only pay off the deficit for ONE year and then have no one left to take from. Is our only choice to continue to borrow until we're Greece? Won't that harm our poor horribly like it's doing there?