The one-percenters (the incredibly wealthy) can’t be happy with all this scrutiny that Mitt’s being subjected to in this most recent presidential campaign of his. Especially when you consider the current state of affairs with the underclass and their lack of money and homes and jobs and cake. You can imagine how upsetting it must be for some of these billionaires, waiting for their butlers to serve dinner, crouched around their enormous dining room tables, in their mansions, set on fortified and guarded acreage, sipping their martinis and whispering between clenched teeth: “What if the rabble is listening to all this, for God’s sake!“
Then consider this:
[...] There have been hundreds of books about globalization and how it would break down borders. But I am unaware of a well-developed theory from that time about how the super-rich and the corporations they run would secede from the nation state.
I do not mean secession in terms of physical withdrawal from the territory of the state, although that happens occasionally. It means a withdrawal into enclaves, a sort of internal immigration, whereby the rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well-being except as a place to extract loot. Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension – and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call, who cares about Medicare?
To some degree, the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; for example, their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity toward public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than one-half trillion dollars in federal, state and local education dollars into private hands, meaning themselves and their friends.(ii) A century ago, at least we got some attractive public libraries out of Andrew Carnegie. Noblesse oblige like Carnegie’s is presently lacking among our seceding plutocracy.
In both world wars, even a Harvard man or a New York socialite might know the weight of an Army pack. Now, the military is for suckers from the laboring classes, whose subprime mortgages you just sliced into CDOs and sold to gullible investors in order to buy your second Bentley or rustle up the cash to employ Rod Stewart to perform at your birthday party. Courtesy of Matt Taibbi, we learn that the sentiment among the super-rich toward the rest of America is often one of contempt rather than noblesse; Bernard Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, says about the views of the 99 percent: “Who gives a crap about some imbecile?”
Here’s a fun game to play from liberalsarecool: GUESS WHO SAID IT –
“Voters are just now meeting the Real Romney — the buyout tycoon who executed takeovers, bankrupted businesses, and sent jobs overseas while killing American jobs.” — Guess who said it!
“Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money? I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods, and then leaving a factory that should be there.”— Guess who said it!
Oops! Romney’s competition had better watch it, or we’re all going to see how the one-percent really makes their millions and billions (and NOT because they work harder). Therefore, naturally, and quicker than you can light a $200 cigar with a $100 bill, the GOP establishment is rushing to defend Romney’s Vulture Capitalism from this populist backlash… we mustn’t call it “Capitalism” — let’s say we’re defending economic freedom!