Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for October 23, 2011

We have come 180 degrees. Mike is the Republican businessman and BD has turned against the 1%.

We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploringWill be to arrive where we startedAnd know the place for the first time. —T.S.Eliot, Little Gidding V, “Four Quartets”

They have been getting our money for 30 years now. This isn’t new.

Boopsie’s always been yummy, and now little Sam is starting to look just like her.

DT’s comment about Boopsie is in reply to my post, which I deleted because of a typo. The correct post should have been:

Boopsie looks good for her age.

LWP: You won’t go to the place “where we started” in order to “know the place for the first time”? I think Eliot is implying that if you’re an aware-sentient (intelligent) witness to life’s succession of events, then you really have no choice but “to go there”. Because “going there” implies understanding. In B.D.‘s case, despite his gruff angry ironic demeanor, he recognizes a certain truth. Deep down somewhere in his soul he realizes, even if only subconsciously, that the right-wing “greed is good”, "step on your best friend’s head in order to ’succeed’" philosophy of life is really only ultimate selfishness. It is Hitlerism. Nietzscheism (power over other people by sheer will alone). It’s the philosophy that spawned the death camps in Germany in WWII. At its extreme it finally becomes psychotic sociopathology. Trudeau actually loves B.D. and has from the beginning. Now B.D. has arrived back at his own beginning and has come to “know the place for the first time”. This explains his anger.

Even though Mike and BD were political opposites when the strip began, they were still friends and cared for one another. I guess that is what happens when 2 people are randomly thrown together in a college dorm.

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. – Hunter S. Thompson

The Left’s moral premises prevent them from ever asking where wealth comes from, because that could lead to realizing that the people who create wealth have a right to it. So instead the Left takes wealth as an unquestioned given, like the air and rocks, and they assume that anyone who has wealth must have taken it from someone else.

This is not to deny that wealth can be accumulated by theft. That was the basis for feudalism and every form of socialism. But again, wealth, to be redistributed, must first be created, and the small percent who CAN create wealth (MUCH more than 1%) deserve it no matter what some envious drum-beating mob says.

Halliburton is one word.

mimismom – so Duke should get the money??

leftwingpatriot – I think there is a difference between the 1% who earn their money through commerce and those who do it through finance. Entrepreneurs do work hard to earn their income. The finance crowd is just skimming money from the rest of us.

Most of those “bloodsuckers” are graduates of Harvard and Yale, etc. and were previously in the Clinton Administration.

Wall Street doesn’t create wealth any more than a guy in Vegas at a blackjack table does.

@pschearer – As a leftie nearing 60 years old, I know full well where wealth comes from and how it’s created. I’ve done my share of that. Unlike righties, I know that a healthy society – one that benefits me and everyone else, one that I benefitted from as I was raised in it – requires people to contribute to it, to maintain it, monitarily. Don’t lecture me about where wealth comes from, please.

pschearer

This is not to deny that wealth can be accumulated by theft. That was the basis for capitalism.

Fixed that for you.

How far do you think that 1% would get in their “wealth creation” without the labor and other contributions of the 99%? Much of the wealth of the 1% that was obtained without that labor is simply rent extraction. It contributes nothing, it simply games the system and redistributes wealth.

As far as who actually creates wealth, that would be the government. They issue the money supply and create the regulatory framework and the infrastructure that allows the private sector to redistribute that wealth.

Don’t let the right-wing kid you, it is all “wealth redistribution”, they’ve just set it up so it is mostly redistributed to them.

BD, the legal name is “Giant Vampire Squid” not “Blood Sucking Scum.”

For the enlightenment of masterskrain which has nothing at all to do with todays strip. Halliburton is not an explicative, it’s a proper noun. The name of the world’s second largest oilfield services corporation, and the man who started a modest oil well cementing company in Texas back in 1919.

Two.

It’s not just banks that hand out huge bonuses for destroying the lives of others. Let’s not forget that BP gave out million-dollar bonuses for the wonderfully “safe” year they had right after their rig exploded and killed 12 people because of negligence and cost-cutting.

Obama is a “traitor to his class”, just as FDR was, only in the opposite direction, FDR went from right to left, Obama from left to right.

the paradigms of liberal and conservative are somewhat artificial. Jesus taught precepts from both paradigms, they are each a set of good principles. Why love some principles and reject others just as good? Why does everyone have to be classified as liberal or conservative?

Bible, Luke 17: 

“26. And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.”

What???!!

“Nietzsche was against the occult based and racial based ideas of the likes of Hitler. His sister Elizabeth married one in 1886 and they went to Paraguay to make an “Aryan colony” there, which later failed. Nietzsche disowned her and her proto-Nazi husband.” Thanx for this historical footnote.

Somewhere in his works, Nietzsche wrote something like “At some point in the future, somebody is going to use my ideas as the justification for phenomenal evil. I want to say in advance that they will not have understood me, and I disassociate myself from them.” (This is a paraphrase, obviously.)

It’s been said that the last real Christian was Christ, and by the same token I suspect that the last real Nietzschean was Nietzsche.

(n.b. Nietzsche also famously broke with Wagner over Wagner’s proto-Nazi inclinations.)

Addendum to the last on Nietzsche (above):By “economize in the grand manner,” N. certainly did not mean maximize one’s wealth. He despised the nineteenth-century ambition to make money and would have considered Ayn Rand and her protege Alan Greenspan as beneath contempt.N. also despised Carlyle for holding up the “Captains of Industry” as the heroic leaders of modern society. Carlyle, like Rand after him, was concerned about the absence of leadership in our increasingly democratic society.But even Carlyle would have been dismayed by the pretense that Wall Street bankers are “Captains of Industry.” B.D. (and pschearer) should read Carlyle’s Past and Present where C. castigates the the contemporary (1843) political economy in which “Cash Payment has become the sole nexus between man and man.”(No, Carlyle was not a Marxist and in fact criticized Marx’s first important work, The German Ideology which came out in 1845.)

To all those who believe that the rich shou ld be taxed and the wealth given to the poor, Jesus didn’t say “Let the goverment tax the rich and give it to the poor” he said: Go! Sell all that YOU have and give it to the poor!" Exclaimation pionts are mine. How much of your wealtyh have you given the poor? Anywhere near 100% Think about it.

If the money had gone to those that the Banks OWED money to, and to their investors, that would have been reasonable. When large portions of the TARP money went to pay “Performance” and “Retention” bonuses… that’s the Banks’ faults.Most businesses, if you lose a lot of money it means that your performance was bad, thus no Performance Bonus. You would probably get fired too, thus no Retention Bonus.

Best strip and comments I have read in awhile. Much to think about. I do not pretend to be as informed as so many of you are, but, I think that a centrist approach is necessary for our country to survive. While we actually need “Captains of Industry” perhaps the bankers should be restrained more. Another area of restraint, I think, is in over regulation. There are certain things we need to produce products and if we cannot get them we will not produce. Someone will though.I for one would like to see jobs come back to this country. There are two reasons for the jobs leaving the country. Manufacturing has become far too regulated. The government requires so much paperwork that companies are making more profit importing goods rather than manufacturing them here. The other reason, I believe, is that banks and government want to stick their hands in all of our pockets for fess and taxes. Let up on both regulations and fees and taxes and our country just might survive.I do not see a need to dismantle the EPA or other federal agencies. However, if we the people could work together to be proper stewards of the Earth and what we do have, perhaps, we could surpass the problems we face.Just me talking and, no, I don’t think I know, even close, to much of anything.

Don’t give up B.D., we can still beat the bastards.

True

Saw “Inside Job” last night on cable. It should be required viewing for anyone who is curious about how we got here. It was also dispiriting to see that many of the people from the last two administrations who caused this wound up in this administration fighting against fixing the problem….

“Capitalism” is inventing a better mouse trap, paying employees a fair wage to manufacture it, and earning a fair profit, on which you pay reasonable taxes to support the society that supported you in accomplishing your goal

“Reaganomics” and “Teaublicanism” is letting the banks and corporations pimp out your kids’ futures, and convincing you that syphilis is the “royal disease” and they’re all now “the upper class”.

Thanks, FriscoLou, it was John Anderson. But that seems like so long ago… Anderson was also the LAST Republican candidate that I would have considered supporting.

I agree that Obama, by endorsing Bush’s bailout of AIG and it’s bank creditors (who otherwise would have gone down with Lehman), betrayed the revolution (“change”) that he promised in our government.And I winced every time he praised Larry Summers and “smart” financiers like Jamie Dimon. The contrast with FDR, Obama’s most obvious model, was embarrassing and made me appreciate FDR’s relative independence, among our elected presidents.Obama made a serious error, but I’m hoping he can recover. He can still break with his corporate supporters and turn the country’s anger against Wall Street. His model would then be Truman, whose every move as Senator was dictated by his Missouri (Prendergast) machine and who was regarded as FDR’s weak replacement—-sure to lose in 1948—-until he denounced the Do-nothing Congress.

Halliburton is not an expletive. It is one of the levels of Hell.

@pschearerAre you saying that people like Paris Hilton, prefssional athletes, actors and actresses all earn their money because they work and not because they have successful managers and either natural ability or natural good looks?

Jesus tried hard to save the publicans* and sinners, and he did manage to save the sinners. 

I’ve posted this before, but because nobody seemed to “get it”, I’m posting it again. But with a hint.

 *Short for Republicans.

@Radish the protesterAnd lot of smart people choose not to get rich beyond what they need for comfortable living. Once you earn more than a certain amount I am sure it just becomes a way to keep score in any case, unless you have an ideal like Bill Gates of giving a lot of it away.

@ all the people on the right of this conversation…I come from Australia. our wealth is far better distributed. Interestingly, we seem to be doing OK. We haven’t had to borrow any more money and we have a much much better safety net for the poor and disadvantaged in our society.

Of course, in Australia the Liberal Party is the conservative party, and the Labor Party is the liberal party.

My erstwhile girlfriend is Australian, and looking in from the outside she HATES the Republicans, but I don’t think she really gets the disconnect between the Aussie Liberal Party and liberalism. If she lived here, she’d end up voting GOP (and if I lived there I’d have ended up voting Labor, for which she would never have forgiven me).

The Australian Liberal Party is slightly to the left of the US Democrats. They have moved more to the right in recent years and are far less small “l” liberals than they used to be. This is since the previous Prime Minister who was closely alighned with Bubya. Still to the left of the Dems in the US, though

@basshwy; You say “your wealth is far better distributed. Interestingly, we seem to be doing OK. We haven’t had to borrow any more money and we have a much much better safety net for the poor and disadvantaged in our society.”

As a Canadian, I think I could say something similar, but probably we are not as good at the redistribution of wealth as Australia is. Could you give some examples of the safety nets?

One thing I really notice, of course, is that we have socialized medicine. I’m waiting to see how that will work out in the US – if it ever comes to pass.

And our banks seem to be far better regulated.

The thing about money is that Everybody needs Enough, or they will die. That’s pretty much agreed upon; Jesus was pretty much the last one every to suggest human beings emulate the Lilies of the Field, who toil not, neither do they spin. But nobody can agree what Enough is, at least not if that Enough is to apply to themselves as well as to Everybody Else.

Speaking for myself, I think I have Enough, and I will go so far as to say that I have More than Enough, in that I’m aware that people get by on less (although if it were VERY MUCH less, I’d consider that to be Barely Enough). By the same token, I figure that anybody who claims the COULDN’T get be on what I make has no real understanding of the realities of the world. At some point, which is where I split from the various pro-wealth ideologies, I certianly think that More than Enough can turn into Too Much. It doesn’t really concern me whether those with Too Much “earned” it or “deserve” it or whatever, any more than whether someone with Not Enough has “earned” or “deserves” their poverty. For both the former and the latter to co-exist is unconscienable.

@RinaFarinaThe one thing I really regret is that we don’t have socialised medecine as they do in Canada. That is the best system I know of. Safety nets…if you lose your job there is no time limit on how long you receive benefits, for example. Health care is free if you are on benefits but thereis a bit of a waiting list. All that said, we still have poverty. There seem to be some people who are just naturally unlucky or lack the know-how to get themselves out of the poverty trap. I guess no system is perfect

I Think you mean Greenwich, Ct. The Village is full of wannabe artists and NYU students. Greenwich, Ct is home to many finance big shots and offices for hedge fund firms. Park Avenue is a godd call though; Chase hq is at 270 Park Ave and Citi hq is 399 Park Ave.

Our bakns, not well liked and a bit greedy but still standing, I suppose. They need greater regulation. Canada has a good system

basshwy, the Aussie Liberals might be to the left of the U.S. Dems on some issues, but on others…not so much. Of course, I’m speaking as an outside observer, and my first-hand experience with Australians was mostly limited to the members of suburban bowls clubs (my girlfreind’s “set”, although at age 48 she was among the youngest members). And since the Labor Party is MUCH further left than the Democrats (who have also shifted rightwards within my memory), it’s likely that the Line of Demarcation is much further left there than it is here, however bitter the invective that is shouted across it.

I noticed my newspaper left out the first two panels of this strip.

Fritzoid,,Yeh, maybe you’re right, Even in Australia we have ultra conservatives. Suburban Bowls clubs are an interesting demographic :) Generally pretty conservative and mostly pretty old, as you observed. I don;t know now entertainign your parliament is when it sits but ours can be a it heated sometimes. At the end of the day, though, what occurs to me is just how lucky we all are that we can s**tcan our respective governments and opposition parties and not go to gaol or a Gulag for the pleasure. We are very very lucky and should always treasure that.

With this my comment the number of comments on this today’s strip has reached 110. Quite large. G.B.Trudeau has hit a nerve.

basshwy, one thing I DEFINITELY admire about Australia is that an unwed, female atheist can rise to the position of Prime Minister. Sarah Palin’s got NOTHING on Julia Gillard as a WLILF (“World Leader I’d Like to…”), and I remember Benazir Bhutto in her prime…

Whoa! Take THAT Tea Party! OWS is spreading to the Right!

Ah, you mean like, “Santorum?”

QB DB recalls the failure to defeat Harvard – again -

@pschearerPeople should be able to enjoy the wealth that they create, that is true. However, our form of capitalism is not like Monopoly, where everyone gets the same amount of wealth to being with, and then gains or loses money based on their choices (and the “dice” of extraneous circumstances beyond their control). Wealth is passed from generation to generation, and I would guess that the vast majority of the 1% started their careers by stepping into boots that their great-grandfathers had pulled themselves up by. So are they entitled to enjoy family wealth that they did nothing to earn?

Personally, I think that even in a “perfect world”, some families/individuals would be wealthier than others, maybe much wealthier. But, no one would be poor from lack of access to the necessary resources to create wealth: quality education, well-paying jobs, and a Market regulated to prevent the kind of surge/depression that we’ve recently gone through.