The Front Page Auntie Pinko Must Be A Joke....

[FredrickDouglass]

Has Auntie Pinko been hitting the bong?

In a time where money rules everything in politics, even more so than the debaucherous 80s and 90s, Auntie Pinko has this to say about the current state of affairs.

"we should count ourselves fortunate that there are wealthy individuals of many different viewpoints"

I thought it was sarcasm and kept looking for a punchline that never came. Then this,
"it is reassuring that the variety is there"

Thought this was democratic underground but this ridiculousness sounds completely mainstream to me. What a joke. Millionaires running the political process now equals "variety"? It's so over-the-top ridiculous I hardly know what to say.

Ask Auntie Pinko?????

If this is Auntie Pinko's level of political/social understanding, I think Auntie needs to stop fielding questions and ask a few basic ones. This gobbledygoop about the interests of millionaires being the same as those of a 20,000/year laborer is the same stuff pushed on us by the Republicans. We're all the same, getting along together, happy. The billionaire and the janitor. This, in effect is obviously what Auntie Pinko has been brainwashed into since she tells us that we "should count ourselves fortunate" to be represented by these "wealthy individuals" that obviously got that way because they have the 20,000/yr laborers interest in mind.

Gimme a break. Don't think I've ever had to wear knee high rubber boots into DU before. Geez

[Political_Junkie]

1. I read Auntie Pinko once,

and came away with the same type of reaction. Not quite Pinko enough for my taste I guess.

[struggle4progress]

5. After the revolution, we'll send Auntie Pinko to a re-education camp

:)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. LOL

:7

[enki23]

2. i think you missed the point

the point being that, so long as money *is* one of the major sources of political power, it's good that the people with the money aren't *all* on the same side.

[trotsky]

4. That's kind of how I read it too.

But then if you're going to live up to the moniker of "Pinko," you had better be a little more harsh on the rich.

[freetobegay]

6. Oh please!

Pinko-a person who holds advanced liberal or moderately radical political or economic views.

Thank God we have some rich people in out party.

[trotsky]

10. Sorry, I was using the "pinko" = "commie" definition.

I'm glad too that there are wealthy liberals, or else we'd be totally screwed. I agree with Auntie Pinko. Just saying that it doesn't quite synch with her nickname.

[FredrickDouglass]

11. Thank God We Have Rich People To Rule US?!?!?

How ironic to even be having this type of discussion with people that visit a site called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C Underground.

Is the space time continuum still torn from 9/11? I guess Pinko is actually living up to the name.

Pinko - The word is derived from the fact that the political color of Communism is red, implying that the subject can't fully embrace communism in public and thus "wears" a faded pink. It could also imply derision of a multi-millionaire Hollywood celebrity with a lavish lifestyle who claims to be concerned about issues of social justice or fair redistribution of wealth.

So perhaps the article fits the persona after all. I for one think the idea of having these wealthy benevolent rulers is the problem in the first place. Having some on "our side" is rank propaganda and it would be laughable if it weren't so deadly.

[freetobegay]

12. You might consider consulting a dictionary.

ON EDIT: or is that a right wing conspiracy also?

[FredrickDouglass]

26. Maybe I Should Just Consult You...Yes?

You seem to have all the answers. Right?
With that insightful addition to the discussion. I'll remember to call on you next time I need anything.

[LondonAmerican]

14. Actually, not ' communism'

but the fact that the 'political color' of the radical Left -- in general -- was red. Red was the color used by the Italian republicans during the Risorgimento, it was the color used by the Socialist parties of the 2nd International, etc. It is NOT exclusive to some Leninist sect or even to socialism broadly defined.

The only main body of Leftists that didn't use Red were the anarchists -- who used Black.

So being Pink just means being on the 'moderate' Left.

[trotsky]

17. That's not what is being said.

That's what you are putting in people's mouths.

It's a GOOD THING that there are wealthy liberals, because in the current political system, money talks, and without them we'd be even more screwed than we currently are.

That doesn't say anything about how messed up the current system is, etc., or that we should be thankful that the rich occasionally toss a few crumbs our way.

[FredrickDouglass]

27. That's Exactly What's Being Said, I'm Quoting The Article

trotsky wrote,
"That's what you are putting in people's mouths"

Perhaps you should read the article again. I quoted what was written. How does that put something in anyone's mouth. The passages were quotes.

Did you read the article, even? AP said that we should "count ourselves fortunate". Is that me putting words in mouths? She said there was a "variety" of views out there. Me again?

It seems that you too are thinking that limousine liberals with millions in the bank, are looking out for you. Perhaps you can explain to me the incentive these individuals have to represent us. And even more, cite the examples in which they've done it. For every example you give, I'll give you 3 where our limousine liberal leaders have worked directly against the interests of it's own constituency. We're not "fortunate" to have these elite rulers. They profit from our loss. Then they turn around and trick people into further support. Not much different from the Republicans. Not as bad as the Republicans but the principle is the same.

It's class warfare disguised as this BS partisan thing between Dems and Repugs. When really it's just "them" and "we" have no substantial representation in our govt.

[trotsky]

29. Okey dokey.

Michael Moore. He's damn rich now. Yes, his movies make him money, but they also expose corporate and government corruption - by BOTH parties. Are we fortunate to have Moore?

[Alerter_]

32. Welcome to PlutocraticUnderground.com, a property of Soros

don't worry, this won't last long ... just until January then we can start setting things right.

[Alerter_]

31. the people with money are buying both sides

That's supposed to make us feel better?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Hey! That's insulting!!!

I've been hitting the bong and I don't think like that!!! :smoke:

[FredrickDouglass]

8. I Didn't Miss The Point At All

In fact I quoted the article so if you think I missed the point, it's an indication that perhaps you missed it.

Pinko is doing the same thing the other limousine liberals do. Tacit criticism of the system that is rigged for the wealthy establishment, while coming back around with how we should "count ourselves fortunate" for our wealthy rulers because there is such a "variety" of opinion out there.

What a joke. I didn't miss the point. Perhaps you should read it again. And don't infer onto the writing what you think (or hope) she means and just take what she actually writes.

It's the same Democratic/Republican "benevolent ruler" propaganda we always here. This time packaged for DU readers.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Perhaps you need to learn a few things:

1) Humor. I was clearly joking.
or
2) That you reply to individual messages here at DU. Hitting reply to the last one will not have the effect you desire.

I was very VERY clearly making a pot joke, so I'm not sure which of these two lessons pertain to you, but either way, welcome to DU!

Note: I haven't even READ the article and wasn't commenting on the topic matter at all.

[FredrickDouglass]

23. Didn't Even Mean To Reply To You So Don't Take Offense

As you have stated that you were very, VERY clearly joking. It was.

I wish that you could have also realized that my post wasn't intended to be directed to you for you didn't say anything worthy of a real response. Right?

As you said, you were joking. I meant to respond to the person that said, I wasn't getting it, hence the subject of my reply.

Thanks for the welcome but I've been around these parts for well over a year now. Cheers.

[On the Road]

7. I Actually Liked that Article

One of the best short discussions on money and democracy I've seen.

Do you have a way to remove moneyed interests from politics? Any time you block one avenue, others open up. If you block hard money, it's soft money. If you block soft money, it's 527's. If you block 527's, it will be buying media outlets or personally funded ads. It's as bad as tax avoidance.

As long as there are rich people involved in the political process, having money behind a variety of positions is vastly better than having it all on one side. That's Auntie Pinko's point.

[FredrickDouglass]

9. Just Read What She Says

I figured everyone would say "but she means"...
I take it for what it says

"it is reassuring that the variety is there"
and
"we should count ourselves fortunate that there are wealthy individuals of many different viewpoints"
If you too, are an advocate of the benevolent ruler system, then say that, but don't pretend the article is criticizing it. It's an endorsement.

She says we're "fortunate". It's the same old neo-liberal razmatazz about how great it is to be ruled by "rich brethren with our interests in mind. Our interests are their interests. We're all one big happy family. The millionaire and the trench digger."

But on DU?

[On the Road]

19. It Has Nothing to Do With the Benevolent Ruler Doctrine

Rich people are part of the society. They are inevitably influential. They are not the inevitable rulers -- that expresses a fundamental disbelief in participatory democracy.

If you disagree with Auntie Pinko's position, your alternatives are:

1) It's better for all the rich people to be Republicans. (Why this would be a good thing, I can't imagine.)

2) We should get rid of all economic distinctions. Keep in mind that there were rich people even when the top income tax rate was over 90%.

I'm puzzled why people are so up in arms about this.

[camero]

22. the tax rate was never 90%

The upper bracket was 90%. Your no. 2 is going to have to happen in some form to keep a more stable society. No society can stand vast inequalities of wealth without collapsing.

[On the Road]

35. Camero, I Think You Realize

that "top rate" meant "upper bracket" in that context.

I agree that the disparities of wealth are too great in this country. The point is that even when income of over $X was taxed at 90%, there were still rich people. It is a fundamentally good thing for some of them to support Democratic principles. Look at the list of Democratic luminaries over the last century. Some, like Clinton, came from poor backgrounds, but others, like FDR, Kennedy, and Gore, came from privileged families.

Revolutions by led the lower classes have a bad record. One thing that was unique about the American revolution was many of the leaders were landed gentry. It left a lot of inequalities to fight, but the country did not become a dictatorship. It left the framework and the means for the people to go further.

[camero]

37. I understand a graduated tax system

But I think you do realize by framing that the way you did that others could have been misled. Also, when the top bracket was 90% the average CEO made 40 times the average worker and now is close to 500 times the average worker. Yes, there will always be rich and some will be progressive. But they are more likely to be that way when the disparity is not so great.

The jury is still out on whether we will become a dictatorship. Blacks up until 1964 may dispute the notion that the US has never been one.

[On the Road]

39. OK, I Think We Agree About Progressive Taxation

that it's good but will not eliminate all differences of wealth. And that the disparities of wealth today have grown way too great.

One of the major reasons this has happened since 1981 is the Reaganite consensus among the rich and upper-middle class -- including the ideas that taxation is theft, and that government has no business regulating markets, supporting labor rights, or seeking greater equality. The attitudes are becoming as bad as they were during the Gilded Age.

It may seem like this has always been true. But the consensus used to be much more liberal. The rich acquiesced to high marginal tax rates even as they tried to avoid them. There was more of a concern over what's good for the country as a whole. These laissez-faire policies were considered bizarre and irresponsible.

Of course there was opportunism and undue influence. But a more liberal upper class was a good thing then, and it's a good thing now.

[FredrickDouglass]

24. Perhaps there is a fundamental disbelief in reality

If one thinks that we have a participatory democracy, then he/she hasn't been paying attention....to anything.

Money rules. And the idea that it is a good thing to have these wealthy individuals to represent the common man as well as his own interests of aggregating more wealth (from whom, if not the common man) are hardly worthy of a response. If so many people didn't fall for this non-sense, it would seem an off-color joke.

Auntie Pinko seems to be one of the believers of the wealthy but benevolent ruler to represent and care for the other 90% of the population.

What a joke. And again, the sad thing is that it's on DU.

[On the Road]

36. I Still Don't Understand What's So Controversial

about Auntie Pinko's column, or about this defense of it.

Rich people are part of the society. They are inevitably influential. They are not the inevitable rulers -- that expresses a fundamental disbelief in participatory democracy.

But no one is voting for George Soros. No one is talking about Soros acting as a benevolent ruler or representing the masses. Like most of us here, Soros wants to defeat Bush. Welcoming his support is perfectly consistent with believing in the principles of a participatory democracy.

I believe strongly in publicly financed campaigns, but I also recognize that it's a moving target, and the influence of the wealthy cannot be eliminated this way. Therefore, it's good to have a certain number of wealthy Democrats.

I also believe the gap between rich and poor is too great and that it should be reduced through progressive taxation and better labor and minimum wage laws. But as history shows, that still leaves rich and poor classes.

I don't understand what direction you want the country to go. If "money talks" and it's a bad thing to ever speak well of the rich, do you want to level the playing field by confiscating wealth? That's not a good solution, and it's not a particularly Democratic one either.

[camero]

13. Publicly financed elections

and make bribery (which is what it is) illegal.

[On the Road]

18. That's Not the Point

I support publicly funded elections and the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but neither one gets the money out of politics. It will just assume different forms. Like balancing a necon with an Alan Colmes liberal. Like "issue advertisements" personally paid for by rich individuals if campaign ads and 527s are off limits. There are 100 ways around the laws, and you can even think of 25 of them you're a genius. It's a moving target.

It is fundamentally a good thing to have rich progressives at the top along with the inevitable conservatives and opportunists. That's all Auntie Pinko was saying.

[camero]

21. and put the rich schmucks in jail

that bribe politicians and the ones that take the money. Yeah it's a good thing we have rich progressives, if they also support changing the system and work toward that.

If they don't the criticism is fair.

[Alerter_]

34. great idea, camero

sounds good to me :)

[Dookus]

15. Living and working

in Silicon Valley for many years, I know a fair number of millionaires and a couple of billionaires. The vast majority of them are good Dems and use their money to advance Dem causes. Thank goodness for them.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Nah, give us a break.

we should count ourselves fortunate that there are wealthy individuals of many different viewpoints

That's what she said. Not the thing about people with a large spread between their incomes having the same interests.

[FredrickDouglass]

25. You Don't Get It At All

I KNOW what she said, but if we can hold two thoughts in our heads at once, here, let us think about it.

Why should we count ourselves fortunate that there are wealthy individuals of many different viewpoints unless one or some of those viewpoints represent our interests.

Was an African slave "fortunate" to have an environment where the slaveowners had many different opinions on how to work the slaves and govern the plantations? Did the vast number of different opinions work in the slave's interest?
An exaggeration, obviously, but hopefully the exaggerated point makes the principle, which is the same, clear. The interests of the mega-wealthy don't coincide with that of the vast majority of the population. The interests can't.

The differing interests is how they became and stay mega-wealthy!!!

So if we can hold two thoughts in our heads at once, understand that our good fortune AP speaks of in relation to the "variety" of opinions out there of super wealthy elites rests on the (I thought) obvious assumption that we have the same interests and are represented by some sector of elites.

That is the entire underlying premise. And, of course, it's BS.

[LoZoccolo]

28. Even segments of the working class have competing interests.

Like if they worked for different companies. So peoples' interests don't overlap completely - that's the way things go no matter how much money you have.

The differing interests is how they became and stay mega-wealthy!!!

Even in a communist state there's different interests between the leadership and the populace, and according to you, people will always pursue their self-interest to a degree so bad to others' interests that it's worthy of complaining about. You confuse having different interests with ignoring one anothers' interests. You could even say that some of the wealthy's interests lie in satisfying the poor's interests so they can keep pursuing their own.

[immoderate]

33. How would you regulate

how much money people are allowed to have?

--IMM

[Alerter_]

30. sausage making is ugly, isn't it? We have to kiss Soros' ass for now

but I have no doubt President Kerry will throw that crook out on his ass come January.