Comments on: MetroFocus Special Edition: Wealth and Income in New York City http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/11/metrofocus-special-edition-wealth-and-income-in-new-york-city/ News, culture and life in and around New York Mon, 06 May 2013 18:28:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Thoughts2 http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/11/metrofocus-special-edition-wealth-and-income-in-new-york-city/#comment-55743 Thoughts2 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 04:35:00 +0000 http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/?p=66034#comment-55743 Mr. Roman certainly was not an impartial moderator. At least he revealed that Mr. Koch is on his board of directors - it showed. Mr. Roman certainly was not an impartial moderator. At least he revealed that Mr. Koch is on his board of directors – it showed.

]]> By: StanChaz http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/11/metrofocus-special-edition-wealth-and-income-in-new-york-city/#comment-55730 StanChaz Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:22:00 +0000 http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/?p=66034#comment-55730 NO NO NO! The RICH ....absolutely.... need MORE tax cuts! There eally seems to be some confusion here, ....a lack of clarity. Perhaps I need to explain "TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS". Basically , there are two parts to this ancient , time-tested theory. I’m sorry ..did I call this fact of life, this eternal truth..a MERE “theory”? My mistake. It is much MORE than a theory. It's simply .....the way things are,...the way things always will be, ...the way things MUST be! Ah, Economics is beautiful, isn’t it? Well, to get on: The FIRST part of tickle-down economics is the "TRICK"-le part. If we are going to make any progress, you must realize, you must understand, that this IS all a trick. An elaborate trick , yes, but still a trick. A trick ...where the super-rich are the "trick-sters", and you, my poor friends, you are the "trick-ees". Do I make myself clear? Good, then we'll go on to the second part. The SECOND part, dear students of the world, is the crucial "Trickle-DOWN" phase. That, my friends, simply means that the super-rich get to URINATE all over the rest of us ...and then laugh ...all the way to their off-shore banks and tax-shelters. In other words, my gullible little friends, the bottom line is this: the ONLY acceptable looters in life are the super-rich. Anybody else .... is subject to arrest, or worse. Got that? Good, you’ll work out just fine. NO NO NO! The RICH ….absolutely…. need MORE tax cuts!

There eally seems to be some confusion here, ….a lack of clarity.

Perhaps I need to explain “TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS”.

Basically , there are two parts to this ancient , time-tested theory.

I’m sorry ..did I call this fact of life, this eternal truth..a MERE “theory”?

My mistake. It is much MORE than a theory. It’s simply …..the way

things are,…the way things always will be, …the way things MUST be!

Ah, Economics is beautiful, isn’t it?

Well, to get on: The FIRST part of tickle-down economics is the “TRICK”-le part.

If we are going to make any progress, you must realize, you must understand,

that this IS all a trick. An elaborate trick , yes, but still a trick.

A trick …where the super-rich are the “trick-sters”, and you, my poor friends,

you are the “trick-ees”. Do I make myself clear? Good, then we’ll go on to the second part.

The SECOND part, dear students of the world, is the crucial “Trickle-DOWN” phase.

That, my friends, simply means that the super-rich get to URINATE all over the rest of us

…and then laugh …all the way to their off-shore banks and tax-shelters.

In other words, my gullible little friends, the bottom line is this:

the ONLY acceptable looters in life are the super-rich.

Anybody else …. is subject to arrest, or worse.

Got that? Good, you’ll work out just fine.

]]> By: Sick of you elite tools http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/11/metrofocus-special-edition-wealth-and-income-in-new-york-city/#comment-55718 Sick of you elite tools Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:32:00 +0000 http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/?p=66034#comment-55718 Meant vile. Not a vile. But really makes no difference. Meant vile. Not a vile. But really makes no difference.

]]> By: Sick of you elite tools http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/11/metrofocus-special-edition-wealth-and-income-in-new-york-city/#comment-55717 Sick of you elite tools Wed, 14 Nov 2012 05:30:00 +0000 http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/?p=66034#comment-55717 Diana Fruchtgott-Roth was a vile in that "review". Really Diana, could you be any more obnoxious, annoying, idiotic, sickening, arrogant, haughty? I could go on and on but that evil, vile woman isn't worth the effort. Diana Fruchtgott-Roth was a vile in that “review”.

Really Diana, could you be any more obnoxious, annoying, idiotic, sickening, arrogant, haughty? I could go on and on but that evil, vile woman isn’t worth the effort.

]]> By: Alexis http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/11/metrofocus-special-edition-wealth-and-income-in-new-york-city/#comment-55716 Alexis Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:02:00 +0000 http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/?p=66034#comment-55716 I couldn't agree more! It was excruciating to listen to and watch Ms. Fruchgott-Goth with her strangely inappropriate smiles and hovering hands. I couldn’t agree more! It was excruciating to listen to and watch Ms. Fruchgott-Goth with her strangely inappropriate smiles and hovering hands.

]]> By: Peter Murray http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/11/metrofocus-special-edition-wealth-and-income-in-new-york-city/#comment-55715 Peter Murray Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:46:00 +0000 http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/?p=66034#comment-55715 The film "Park Ave, Money, Power and the American Dream" was terrific but the discussion which followed added little, dominated as it was by the extremist right wing views and faux facts and dismal philosophy of panelist Diana Fruchtgott-Roth. Mz Fruchtgott-Roth happily approves that large numbers of people in our society suffer economic deprivation as long as some of them can, through mobility, rise to a more prosperous level. According to her thinking, the rise of the lucky few to join the top rungs of society is made meaningful precisely because so many remain in conditions of poverty. She obviously believes economic success would be of less value if everyone achieved it. The moderator, Rafael Pi Roman seemed in awe at her presentation and the other panelist Jeff Madrick was too much of a gentleman and too polite to call her on the ugliness of her ideas and didn't get much of a chance to express his own ideas as he had to battle her frequent snide interruptions. Besides her contempt for the poor and her disregard for the facts Ms. Fruchtgott-Roth champions private schools and public vouchers to pay for them as the solution to the question of economic disparity. I say "question" rather than "problem" of economic disparity because for Mz Fruchtgott-Roth economic dispartiy not a problem but a fine thing that allows for the creation of Horatio Algers who rise above the motley crew and inspire us to appreciate the magnificence of our "free market" though we ourselves may remain at the bottom to highlight Mr. Alger's achivement. In other words in order for the upper class to be truly resplendent the lower class in deprivation. The frequency which Mz. Fruchgott-Roth brought in her views asserting that private schools are better than public schools( one of her faux facts) and that parents should be given vouchers to send their children to any school they want,in a discussion that was about economic inequality made it seem that she has axe to grind on behalf of the for profit educational industry and was using the discussion to get in a few plugs for it. Mz Fruchgott- Roth is excessively pleased with her own views, smiling inappropriately as if she had just answered the question that won the prize on a quiz show. Her presentation and her manner can best be described as unpleasant. In more than fifty years of watching panel discussions I do not think I have ever seen one with this level of unpleasantness projected by one of the panelists. It was painful to watch. The film “Park Ave, Money, Power and the American Dream” was terrific but the discussion which followed added little, dominated as it was by the extremist right wing views and faux facts and dismal philosophy of panelist Diana Fruchtgott-Roth. Mz Fruchtgott-Roth happily approves that large numbers of people in our society suffer economic deprivation as long as some of them can, through mobility, rise to a more prosperous level. According to her thinking, the rise of the lucky few to join the top rungs of society is made meaningful precisely because so many remain in conditions of poverty. She obviously believes economic success would be of less value if everyone achieved it. The moderator, Rafael Pi Roman seemed in awe at her presentation and the other panelist Jeff Madrick was too much of a gentleman and too polite to call her on the ugliness of her ideas and didn’t get much of a chance to express his own ideas as he had to battle her frequent snide interruptions. Besides her contempt for the poor and her disregard for the facts Ms. Fruchtgott-Roth champions private schools and public vouchers to pay for them as the solution to the question of economic disparity. I say “question” rather than “problem” of economic disparity because for Mz Fruchtgott-Roth economic dispartiy not a problem but a fine thing that allows for the creation of Horatio Algers who rise above the motley crew and inspire us to appreciate the magnificence of our “free market” though we ourselves may remain at the bottom to highlight Mr. Alger’s achivement. In other words in order for the upper class to be truly resplendent the lower class in deprivation. The frequency which Mz. Fruchgott-Roth brought in her views asserting that private schools are better than public schools( one of her faux facts) and that parents should be given vouchers to send their children to any school they want,in a discussion that was about economic inequality made it seem that she has axe to grind on behalf of the for profit educational industry and was using the discussion to get in a few plugs for it. Mz Fruchgott- Roth is excessively pleased with her own views, smiling inappropriately as if she had just answered the question that won the prize on a quiz show. Her presentation and her manner can best be described as unpleasant. In more than fifty years of watching panel discussions I do not think I have ever seen one with this level of unpleasantness projected by one of the panelists. It was painful to watch.

]]>