"We Need Success, Not Excess"
Being in business isn't easy; some people make it, many do not survive for very long. Most Americans want business people to succeed. We aren't rooting for their failure, we want them to do well, and we realize they have invested money, work and time in these ventures. But we've seen an alarming concentration of wealth in the last three + decades, and not among our local grocery stores, service stations, or hardware stores, rather this concentration of wealth has been led by members of the "investment class," a highfalutin sounding expression, the real meaning of which is, "wealthy people." Now, I'm not really against wealthy people per se, but I am against out and out, ruthless, exploitative greed. Greed that knows no bounds or decency towards the many others who also populate this country. The accumulation of wealth has been obscene and counterproductive to the country's stability, a problem I don't need to explain to an increasing number of Americans. They're hurting!
In response to the concentration of wealth, we've seen conservatives tout tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, as if they need more money, while other parts of their "program" demand cuts to our most economically vulnerable citizens. They've counted on selfishness "trumping" (pun intended) shared responsibility, something that has often sadly proven to be true. While no one knows what Americans will think tomorrow, there are signs the tide "may" be turning. You can only squeeze a disconnected public so far before some people actually begin to feel the pain and they begin to reconnect to others in similar circumstances. As long as Americans pay attention, the conservatives will fail. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, big business and wealthy interests haven't been pouring money into political campaigns and turning common sense on its head so they can pay you more in wages and benefits. Nope, they want the opposite, but unfortunately many Americans have been complicit in their own economic decline by supporting the nonsense. Meanwhile the wealthiest of Americans have been gaining more and more of the economic pie for themselves.
We need watch dogs to keep tabs on business at every level. They're always trying to figure out new gimmicks to separate you from your money, which can then go into their bank accounts. Remember a year or so ago when some banks wanted to charge a fee for some accounts, but many Americans finally stood up and said, "No!" The banks backed down. We need a "Success, not Excess" type of campaign in the country. There has been no shared sacrifice by the upper incomes, but now we've got to make sure they share in sacrifices more than ever, since they've benefited so much in recent times. No more, "we'll raise prices, if we have to increase the minimum wage or provide health care." Let the executives and wealthy stockholders pay first, not reap the benefits of low wages and benefits. That's the ONLY way to get this country back onto anywhere near an even keel. Call their hands, get in their faces every time they make a move to benefit themselves and not the rest of America. Tell them, "You've had your way and now YOU will pay." Tell lawmakers to quit this tax cut crap for the wealthiest of the wealthy.
Concentration of wealth and power have seen terrible consequences in times past. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia tried for too long to hold onto an outdated system of wealth, privilege and repression. After agreeing to mild "change" in 1905, Nicholas then tried to retract much of that minimal "change." When people then took matters into their own hands in 1917, it wasn't pretty. Nicholas was swept away and he and his entire family were eventually killed, as were others of the Russian nobility. Pay back can be absolute hell.
WORD HISTORY:
Not/Naught/Naughty/Nought-Modern "not" actually stems from a former compound. It goes back to Indo European "ne," which meant "no, not." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the same form, "ne," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ne/na," which then was coupled with "wiht," which meant "creature, being, thing,"^ to give Old English "nawiht," which meant, "nothing," which shortly thereafter became "noht," and later, "naught" (nothing, zero), a variant spelling of which was "nought" ("zero"). The form "noht" later became "not." Besides meaning "nothing, zero," "naught" also took on the added meaning "not good, sinful, wrong," which then gave us "naughty." All of these various forms have relatives in the other Germanic languages: German has "nicht" (not) and "nichts" (nothing), but German dialects have several variants from the standard form, including: net, nich, nit; Low German has "nich" (not) and "nix" (nothing); Dutch has "niet" (not) and "niets" (nothing); West Frisian has "net" (not) and "neat" (nothing). Apparently the North Germanic languages (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic) do not use forms, although Icelandic has the related "né" (meaning "nor," as in "neither this nor that").
^ This is still around in modern English as "wight," although it certainly is little used in American English, but just because I've had to use it here, I'll do its history soon. Its German cousin is "Wicht." And by the way, it has nothing to do with the form used in the Isle of Wight.
In response to the concentration of wealth, we've seen conservatives tout tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, as if they need more money, while other parts of their "program" demand cuts to our most economically vulnerable citizens. They've counted on selfishness "trumping" (pun intended) shared responsibility, something that has often sadly proven to be true. While no one knows what Americans will think tomorrow, there are signs the tide "may" be turning. You can only squeeze a disconnected public so far before some people actually begin to feel the pain and they begin to reconnect to others in similar circumstances. As long as Americans pay attention, the conservatives will fail. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, big business and wealthy interests haven't been pouring money into political campaigns and turning common sense on its head so they can pay you more in wages and benefits. Nope, they want the opposite, but unfortunately many Americans have been complicit in their own economic decline by supporting the nonsense. Meanwhile the wealthiest of Americans have been gaining more and more of the economic pie for themselves.
We need watch dogs to keep tabs on business at every level. They're always trying to figure out new gimmicks to separate you from your money, which can then go into their bank accounts. Remember a year or so ago when some banks wanted to charge a fee for some accounts, but many Americans finally stood up and said, "No!" The banks backed down. We need a "Success, not Excess" type of campaign in the country. There has been no shared sacrifice by the upper incomes, but now we've got to make sure they share in sacrifices more than ever, since they've benefited so much in recent times. No more, "we'll raise prices, if we have to increase the minimum wage or provide health care." Let the executives and wealthy stockholders pay first, not reap the benefits of low wages and benefits. That's the ONLY way to get this country back onto anywhere near an even keel. Call their hands, get in their faces every time they make a move to benefit themselves and not the rest of America. Tell them, "You've had your way and now YOU will pay." Tell lawmakers to quit this tax cut crap for the wealthiest of the wealthy.
Concentration of wealth and power have seen terrible consequences in times past. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia tried for too long to hold onto an outdated system of wealth, privilege and repression. After agreeing to mild "change" in 1905, Nicholas then tried to retract much of that minimal "change." When people then took matters into their own hands in 1917, it wasn't pretty. Nicholas was swept away and he and his entire family were eventually killed, as were others of the Russian nobility. Pay back can be absolute hell.
WORD HISTORY:
Not/Naught/Naughty/Nought-Modern "not" actually stems from a former compound. It goes back to Indo European "ne," which meant "no, not." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the same form, "ne," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ne/na," which then was coupled with "wiht," which meant "creature, being, thing,"^ to give Old English "nawiht," which meant, "nothing," which shortly thereafter became "noht," and later, "naught" (nothing, zero), a variant spelling of which was "nought" ("zero"). The form "noht" later became "not." Besides meaning "nothing, zero," "naught" also took on the added meaning "not good, sinful, wrong," which then gave us "naughty." All of these various forms have relatives in the other Germanic languages: German has "nicht" (not) and "nichts" (nothing), but German dialects have several variants from the standard form, including: net, nich, nit; Low German has "nich" (not) and "nix" (nothing); Dutch has "niet" (not) and "niets" (nothing); West Frisian has "net" (not) and "neat" (nothing). Apparently the North Germanic languages (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic) do not use forms, although Icelandic has the related "né" (meaning "nor," as in "neither this nor that").
^ This is still around in modern English as "wight," although it certainly is little used in American English, but just because I've had to use it here, I'll do its history soon. Its German cousin is "Wicht." And by the way, it has nothing to do with the form used in the Isle of Wight.
Labels: business interests, conservatives, English, etymology, Germanic languages, greed, the Interests, the wealthy
posted by Randy at 9:31 AM
2 Comments:
So true, as U say, we aren't rooting against them, but enough please. I remember your article about the czar.
selfishness is still in vogue and has been since when Reagan ran in 1976 against Ford.
Post a Comment
<< Home