New York Times endorses plutocracy! (Cory Booker)-David Sirota

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,025
Reputation
5,000
Daps
69,904
I didn't either breh, I thought he was one of the good ones :to:

Booker is nothing more than a new look to the center-left Clinton brand of Democrats that emerged in the 90s. Booker's not a bad guy, in fact, I'd say he's overall a good guy but he does not share the disdain for Wall Street that many in America do. For various financial and personal reasons.

You just have to decide if you want an Elizabeth Warren sort of progressive or social-issue progressive Clintonite. If Democrats and progressives are unable to, or afraid to push a progressive with an understanding of business but is willing to challenge them on economic issues, then they might as well just not show up to the table and they'll just stay as that party that "isn't as bad as the Republicans."
 

Allah

Pro
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
529
Reputation
20
Daps
641
Reppin
916
im asking a simple question, i didnt ask you whether you wanted to abolish the private sector, i asked how do you bring jobs to a city without private equity?

the point im making is that there is a limit to how much leftist political theory can be used to develop and revitalize a city, you need private equity and capitalism to develop a city and there is nothing wrong with what booker said and there is nothing wrong with attracting capital to your city and working with investors, which is what booker has been doing in newark

i just did a thread of another example of it http://www.thecoli.com/threads/capitalism-education-ahh.135940/

this denigration of private equity and capitalism its not something black people and black cities should get down with, its a dead end economically and intellectually, we want private equity and capitalism in our cities

and this guy sirota is an idiot and this article is a stupid hit piece

you say this as if there is a choice between capitalism and a leftist solution. the reality is that the moment you provide a realistic option that means the meaningful redistribution of wealth and put that into action, you end up in prison or dead. its a literal dead end because of state repression.

so operating within the context of capitalism (by force) the state ie the private sector needs to play a larger and more efficient role in creating jobs. private equity is concerned with growing its business ie increasing its profits. what im saying is that profit should not be the concern of the managers of the state. their concern should be the welfare of its constituents, a radical concept i know. obviously you cant expect this from a politician who is in the pocket of your prized private equity. the jobs being created by private equity are not high paying carreers, they are service sector, often temporary low quality jobs. quality over quantity.

but no, lets leave it to private equity, fire teachers and hire more starbucks baristas
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,632
Reppin
Arrakis
you say this as if there is a choice between capitalism and a leftist solution. the reality is that the moment you provide a realistic option that means the meaningful redistribution of wealth and put that into action, you end up in prison or dead. its a literal dead end because of state repression.

if you are the mayor of a small poor city, you have no wealth to spread around, you have to create wealth

a political theory that is designed to spread wealth is not the political theory that you should use to CREATE wealth IMO

like i said http://www.thecoli.com/threads/capitalism-education-ahh.135940/ this is a good example of how you combine the 2 things

so operating within the context of capitalism (by force) the state ie the private sector needs to play a larger and more efficient role in creating jobs. private equity is concerned with growing its business ie increasing its profits. what im saying is that profit should not be the concern of the managers of the state. their concern should be the welfare of its constituents, a radical concept i know.

the government gets its money from taxing private equity and private enterprise, so the more private equity is invested in a municipality the more money the municipality has to look out for the welfare of its citizens

so the government should be concerned with the the number and amount of private equity, which is what booker was doing

obviously you cant expect this from a politician who is in the pocket of your prized private equity.

i take it this is a generic attack and not an actual attack on the subject at hand which is booker

cuz are you attacking booker's job performance? or are you just pontificating

the jobs being created by private equity are not high paying carreers, they are service sector, often temporary low quality jobs. quality over quantity.

i dont know what this means, where are you getting this information from? as far as i know there isnt any particular type of job created by private equity, private equity is a generic term

even if you were right that still begs the question, how do you create these high paying jobs, without private equity?
 

gho3st

plata or plomo
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
34,863
Reputation
2,965
Daps
84,121
Reppin
2016
Most politcians are rich. shiiit people get into politics to make money. You thought they got in to make a difference? :mjpls;
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,850
Reppin
NULL
oh well at least we still have elizabeth warren :to:
welllll... click the link to watch the video at the bottom.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/27/multimillionaire-elizabeth-warren-im-not-wealthy/

Actually, I don’t think that’s what she’s saying here but that headline is simply too sweet to resist. (That was HuffPo’s original headline too before they changed it.) The quote fromBuzzFeed:

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told [Lawrence O'Donnell].

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

Here’s her financial disclosure form, which is brimming with TIAA-CREF mutual funds plus IBM stock valued somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000. The confusion comes when she says “I’m not one of them.” It sounds like she means “I’m not wealthy,” but all she actually means, I think, is “I don’t have a big stock portfolio.” Which is kinda sorta true: She’s got a hefty mutual-fund portfolio, but shares in a fund are different from shares in a company because the investment’s being managed by someone else and it’s spread out among hundreds or thousands of holdings. That’s not an insuperable obstacle to insider trading as a congressman — if you own a fund that invests in a single industry, legislation to benefit that industry as a whole will pay off — but it makes things more difficult. (A lawyer friend tells me that he’s allowed to invest in mutual funds at his firm but, for conflict-of-interest purposes, has to get approval for investments in individual corporations.) Her IBM shares are obviously a problem, but does that constitute a big investment in stock? Remember, for comparison purposes, we’re talking about a Congress here where bigwigs like Pelosi lay down $2 million on can’t-miss IPOs (via their spouses, of course).

Follow the BuzzFeed link and scroll down and you’ll see that Warren’s spokesman is framing her comments this way too. But who knows? Maybe I’m wrong and she really was moronically trying to insist that she’s part of “the 99 percent” despite her many, many millions in assets. That would fit with the Democratic narrative of things you can never be if you’re a liberal: Racist, “out of touch,” uncivil, rich. If that’s what she was trying to say, though, then she’s missing an opportunity. This pitch is more effective in Massachusetts coming from a would-be benevolent rich philosopher-king who wants to help the poor than as some sort of blue-collar “just folks” type who so happens to teach at Harvard. Ask the Kennedys.
 

Richard Wright

Living Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
3,404
Reputation
690
Daps
6,402
Booker is basically the 'next' Obama. Im very happy for him and proud of his achievements. We have a pay-to-play system, but what young people need to realize is no one else wants to change that.

Teddy Roosevelt was writing about politicians controlled by standard oil and wall street 90 years ago.

The new york times is owned by that 'aristocracy', so why would we expect them to go against it?

And I agree that private equity is how we revitalize the cities. Unions are not coming back. It's time to move forward.
 

Richard Wright

Living Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
3,404
Reputation
690
Daps
6,402
tax more, expand private sector, unionize all workers public and private to increase quality of jobs so that person x doesnt have to work 3 jobs and instead can work 1 and free up the other 2, increase minimum wage etc etc

Taxing more and expanding the private sector are competing goals. Unionized public workers has basically been proven to be a disaster, right to work has ended the hope of private sector unions return.

We need education and finance/equity, not more tax and spend failed policies.
 

Allah

Pro
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
529
Reputation
20
Daps
641
Reppin
916
if you are the mayor of a small poor city, you have no wealth to spread around, you have to create wealth

a political theory that is designed to spread wealth is not the political theory that you should use to CREATE wealth IMO

like i said http://www.thecoli.com/threads/capitalism-education-ahh.135940/ this is a good example of how you combine the 2 things



the government gets its money from taxing private equity and private enterprise, so the more private equity is invested in a municipality the more money the municipality has to look out for the welfare of its citizens

so the government should be concerned with the the number and amount of private equity, which is what booker was doing



i take it this is a generic attack and not an actual attack on the subject at hand which is booker

cuz are you attacking booker's job performance? or are you just pontificating



i dont know what this means, where are you getting this information from? as far as i know there isnt any particular type of job created by private equity, private equity is a generic term

even if you were right that still begs the question, how do you create these high paying jobs, without private equity?

private equity creates wealth for a few who then decide what to pass on to the rest of us. i have yet to see a proportional rise in jobs that comes with an increase of private wealth.
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,717
Reputation
555
Daps
22,632
Reppin
Arrakis
private equity creates wealth for a few who then decide what to pass on to the rest of us.

private equity is taxed, that is how the money comes back to the public

i have yet to see a proportional rise in jobs that comes with an increase of private wealth.

apparently you aren't aware of the entire 20th century
 

Allah

Pro
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
529
Reputation
20
Daps
641
Reppin
916
Taxing more and expanding the private sector are competing goals. Unionized public workers has basically been proven to be a disaster, right to work has ended the hope of private sector unions return.

We need education and finance/equity, not more tax and spend failed policies.
i meant expand the public sector

and you cant be serious about unions. you do realize that the few unions still around are the only thing keeping the us from being china in terms of conditions hours benefits etc
 
Top