CHANGE you were supposed to believe in...

**Papasito** · September-18-13, 02:29 PM

"Whenever we have musicians or artists or movie stars come here to perform -- which these folks will be doing this evening for a bunch of rich people and fancy people and all of that...

- Michelle Obama
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...d-fancy-people

How much is Michelle Obama worth?

$11.8 Million

How much is Barack Obama worth?

$12.2 Million

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ric...ama-net-worth/

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ric...ama-net-worth/

Tell me more about how you are "down to earth" and not one of the "1%", Mrs. Obama, as you live your lavish lifestyle.....

Q: Who is rich and fancy?
A: YOU ARE.

**old guy** · September-18-13, 11:12 PM

Give it a break Papasito. I've actually thought you've posted a few good things here lately.
If you'd spent a few more minutes on the internet you could have easily found a more demeaning picture of the first lady.

The president and the wife of the most powerful country in the world having a net worth of 24 million dollars [[if that's true). What a shocker. That's chump change for people of their stature in this day and age. They probably wouldn't have the means to join some country clubs with an income like that.

I do work for people that are worth 50 - 75 million dollars and drive pick up trucks and Toyota mini vans. They're for the most part a bunch of schmucks that got lucky and made out well. I probably know 15 or 20 other people that are as well off or better and I live in a town with a population of less than 3000. They all have kids, most of which probably have a net worth which is more than the Obama's.

"Whenever we have musicians or artists or movie stars come here to perform -- which these folks will be doing this evening for a bunch of rich people and fancy people and all of that...

Did she say that she wasn't part of that group?

**Goose** · September-18-13, 11:29 PM

I think his point is the hypocrisy to the people they are pandering too, like they are one of the little people [[as many/most Democrats claim to be). The use of class warfare [[Bain Capital) to divide, whilst being part of the elite themselves. People are ignorant if they think any politician [[D or R) have their best interest at heart.

**old guy** · September-18-13, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Goose

I think his point is the hypocrisy to the people they are pandering too, like they are one of the little people [[as many/most Democrats claim to be). The use of class warfare [[Bain Capital) to divide, whilst being part of the elite themselves. People are ignorant if they think any politician [[D or R) have their best interest at heart.

I agree with your last sentence.

**Zacha341** · September-19-13, 02:53 AM

Yep... it should be well beyond argument that the rich and elite plateau bear a scarlet 'R' by their name, exclusively.

Sure, we're told and sold that the other side is our sole 'mean' enemy.

Yet policies continue forth increasingly similar to what we'd get and moreover expect from the 'greedy' power-mongering, regressive repubs.

Onward to progress! More 'change' to come and it ain't gonna all be pretty and it will coming from the D realm as well a R!

**Zacha341** · September-19-13, 02:57 AM

Add Nancy Pelosi to the rich and elite pile while your at it. She is not exactly broke....

35+M back in 2011...

**rb336** · September-19-13, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Yep... it should be well beyond argument that the rich and elite plateau bear a scarlet 'R' by their name, exclusively.

Sure, we're told and sold that the other side is our sole 'mean' enemy.

Yet policies continue forth increasingly similar to what we'd get and moreover expect from the 'greedy' power-mongering, regressive repubs.

Onward to progress! More 'change' to come and it ain't gonna all be pretty and it will coming from the D realm as well a R!

There has never been anyone who claimed that the only wealthy ppeople in government are republicans. The difference is whether they believe the wealthy should be paying their share to keep this country great. There is where the Dems fall down. They give lip service to the idea, but their actions speak otherwise

**Zacha341** · September-19-13, 09:47 AM

Anyone? Now that's a strong claim in itself. Setting that aside, while one can argue over claims made, without a doubt the rhetoric of a great deal of main stream media and directly from some politicians mouths is that wealth is stored up amongst the greedy right - usually white repubs.

So much duplicity to keep the tethered masses looking one way for certain ascribed behaviors, while the 'correct' party goes forth with the same.

I carry the water for neither the right or left. And yes, I agree a great deal of lip service is going forth from both parties. Alot of hypocricy as well.

Originally Posted by rb336

There has never been anyone who claimed that the only wealthy ppeople in government are republicans. The difference is whether they believe the wealthy should be paying their share to keep this country great. There is where the Dems fall down. They give lip service to the idea, but their actions speak otherwise

**rb336** · September-19-13, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Anyone? Now that's a strong claim in itself.

extremely easy to prove me wrong. show me one person who has made that claim

Setting that aside, while one can argue over claims made, without a doubt the rhetoric of a great deal of main stream media and directly from some politicians mouths is that wealth is stored up amongst the greedy right - usually white repubs.

So much duplicity to keep the tethered masses looking one way for certain ascribed behaviors, while the 'correct' party goes forth with the same.

I carry the water for neither the right or left. And yes, I agree a great deal of lip service is going forth from both parties. Alot of hypocricy as well.

This is why both parties rely on "hot button" issues. they can not run based on any real improvements in the lives of the voters. We all keep voting against our long-term interests when we vote for these corporatists

**Zacha341** · September-19-13, 11:15 AM

^^^ No problem... Turn on the radio, blog, news feed or tv it is part of the daily convo. I will only cite a few for instance from just a fast google search:

Straight from the president [[as cited from Mother Jones 2012 article):

"President Obama has Republicans dead to rights on this. "They say that their biggest priority is making sure that we deal with the deficit in a serious way," he said on Meet the Press this morning, "but the way they're behaving is that their only priority is making sure that tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans are protected. That seems to be their only overriding, unifying theme." Quite so.

Article cited:
For Republicans, It's All About the Rich, the Very Rich, and the Super-Rich

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...and-super-rich

The Republicans Should Shed All Pretense, Become the 'Party of the Rich'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamn...heyre-nothing/

Young voters call GOP ‘closed-minded,’ ‘racist,’ and ‘solely for the rich’

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/03/young...-for-the-rich/

Americans See Republicans As the Party of the Rich

http://elections.firedoglake.com/201...y-of-the-rich/

Huffpost actually breaks from the ranks to offer this:

Republicans Are Not Only Out To Help The Rich: RNC Chairman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1091012.html

**rb336** · September-19-13, 11:45 AM

not one of those portrayed dems in congress as NOT wealthy, just that republicans were only concerned with the wealthy

**Zacha341** · September-19-13, 12:06 PM

To the original question:

"There has never been anyone who claimed that the only wealthy ppeople in government are republicans."

**noise** · September-20-13, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

To the original question:

"There has never been anyone who claimed that the only wealthy ppeople in government are republicans."

And none of your articles support your claim.

**lpg** · September-20-13, 01:04 PM

The reality is none of those people in power in Washington, DC have anything in common with us.

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-20-13, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by lpg

The reality is none of those people in power in Washington, DC have anything in common with us.

Question is then, when will the fanbases of the two parties wake up and realize this and stop the cheerleading for them? Doesn't seem as if people are coming around to the charade that is being played on us all.

**Zacha341** · September-20-13, 03:16 PM

Oh well... per every word, comma, and pronoun, subject, and verb, and sub-link of each link - that you read - I guess you're right.

"Sniffles" I will defer to move on lest I get out the razor blades.

This is one of the reasons I rarely do the provide "links" thing... it's a useless exercise.

Originally Posted by noise

And none of your articles support your claim.

**Zacha341** · September-20-13, 03:17 PM

Yep. That sums it up pretty well...

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Question is then, when will the fanbases of the two parties wake up and realize this and stop the cheerleading for them? Doesn't seem as if people are coming around to the charade that is being played on us all.

**Zacha341** · September-20-13, 03:23 PM

Yes, the parsing goes forth that this side is for this crowd, that side is will help the other keeps voters intact, and calmed. Meanwhile the smart people in the room have agendas related to their peers. Not us.

Originally Posted by lpg

The reality is none of those people in power in Washington, DC have anything in common with us.

**rb336** · September-20-13, 04:07 PM

The key is --- vote for the people who will most anger the corporatists. No republican, no democrat except Elizabeth Warren, no randian libertarians, etc.

**noise** · September-22-13, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Oh well... per every word, comma, and pronoun, subject, and verb, and sub-link of each link - that you read - I guess you're right.

"Sniffles" I will defer to move on lest I get out the razor blades.

This is one of the reasons I rarely do the provide "links" thing... it's a useless exercise.

Actually, it seems per the fact you didn't understand the comment.

The links made no comment on rb's post. At all.

Weird you can't understand that.

**oladub** · September-22-13, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

The key is --- vote for the people who will most anger the corporatists. No republican, no democrat except Elizabeth Warren, no randian libertarians, etc.

I'm, only partially disagreeing. Corporatism, to me, seems to be most under attack from Ron Paul supporters in the Republican Party and some out of favor Democrats like Kucinich and Grayson. Here is where I agree with you. Corporatism is promoted by both the Republican and Democratic establishments.

"Corporatism is not capitalism. Corporatism is the destruction of the free market and the creation of corporate monopolies achieved through the regulatory and monopoly power of strong central government." -thetruthbooth

Monsanto, an example of corporatism:

**JBMcB** · September-22-13, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

No republican, no democrat except Elizabeth Warren, no randian libertarians, etc.

If by "Randian" you mean Ayn Rand, she was dead-set against corporatism as well. If you mean Rand Paul, he isn't libertarian.

**rb336** · September-23-13, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

If by "Randian" you mean Ayn Rand, she was dead-set against corporatism as well. If you mean Rand Paul, he isn't libertarian.

The biggest issue I have with Ayn Rand [[and, by extension, her followers) is that she couldn't understand that if her "philosophy" was implemented, it would be the ultimate triumph of corporatism. the large companies would swallow or kill the smaller, control the lives of their workers and there would be no recourse