The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK FIVE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - May 9th - May 15th - Chapter Five- The Money Power - (pages 107 - 122) - No Spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
Savannah wrote: "1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair asse..."but they must be controlled by government regulations.
-------------------------------------
your item 4 Savannah - the government does not know how and they should only be regulated by regulations.
The current comparison can be high volume horizontal hydro fracking - a technology only ten years in production - with untested methods (by virtue of time) where no one can write rules or laws that work because no one knows what might work.
We have a similar situation with "rules or regulations" for spend fuel rods form nuclear power plants.
Both industry and government often wants "instant gradification" - it is never easy and seldom very safe.
Savannah wrote: "1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair asse..."ANSWER: Although I believe that legislation must be implemented to prevent a CEO from making more than a certain multiple of what the ordinary worker in the CEO’s industry is making, I cannot solely attribute our massive national debt to the greed of those in power. Our debt problems are also equally attributable to the U.S.’s extensive benefits system. The “Great Society” that Johnson touted was supposed to lift people out of a continued dependence upon entitlements.
A couple of more comments on Savannah's item 5.
There are two types of CEOs - those with skin in the game - who own and have wealth at risk and those who don't. So one cannot easily compare a Steve Jobs to the CEO of let's say IBM.
Also some CEOs, such as Lee Iacocca during the Chrysler crisis made a path that saved the company - so the pay to a CEO should not be measured off what another employee earns, especially in America where there is so often the option to find another job. But it should be all recognized as "earned" income and not subject to advantageous tax rates.
The greed is not only those in power - if we Americans were more ready to pay the required taxes to run our country then corporate America would be forced to also. Nobody wants to pay taxes and the American public seems to accept that if we get a tax cut so can the corporations that depend upon our society to exist.
Last point - I think that the Great Society and all the similar programs since FDR were more aimed at, hopefully, giving a strong platform for people to rise from rather than to "lift" people up.
I think the argument of the "money powers" and those who fight against them is probably the oldest confrontation in this country. This nation was established on the idea of giving the maximum amount of freedom of action to its citizens and it works on a capitalist system economically. By their nature, capitalists exist to make money and as much of it as possible without landing in jail. Businesses, whether you define them as "people" (smile) or not, are not charitable organizations and not naturally inclined to turn over any part of their profits to the public in the form of government. Individually, we've seen that then and now they can be excellent philanthropists.So there is an immediate problem as to how much regulation and/or confiscation of profit for the common good is necessary or advisable to maintain a balance between the two. What does a government owe to its citizens in the form of protection? Just physical protection or should the government use its legislative powers and taxation powers to protect citizens as laborers and consumers as well? Who even solves these things better, government or the private sector? Who should determine what's necessary? These are all questions that began to be decided in the public's favor during this time period but we are still asking pretty much the same questions. Do we still want maximum, unlimited freedom or do we want to address the needs of all the people in order to have a fairer, safer community?
Michael wrote: "Cultural aside: According to historian Lewis Gould, Jimmy Stewart's famous filibuster scene in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was modeled on La Follette's filibuster against the currency bill:"Interesting about the scene from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. As I was reading this chapter I was thinking how it would make a good scene or scenes in a movie! I liked especially the part where Senator Heyburn from Idaho, who had previously declined to participate, "...leapt to his feet. 'Mr. President!' he cried out. But Fairbanks proceeded to call for votes on the bill..." This makes for good drama :)
Glynn wrote: "I liked especially the part where Senator Heyburn from Idaho, who had previously declined to participate, "...leapt to his feet. 'Mr. President!' he cried out."I loved that part too, Glynn. Such a great image. It's wonderful to read the old pre-CSPAN press accounts of what happened in the Capitol.
I enjoyed writing this chapter, in which La Follette was the central figure. It brought out his best side--the valiant, doomed stand against the entire Senate. And his worst side--the conspiratorial conjecture about Morgan and the Panic. I struggle with that part. Capitalist conspiracies have long been part of progressive lore. Conspiracy theory is an effective political tool but usually fantastical and even dangerous. I wrote extensively about right-wing paranoia in my first book, Blowing Smoke, and it pained me to see La Follette employ similar tactics in his day.
by
Michael WolraichIn answer to my own question about whether La Follette was a "shifty self-seeker" or a martyr for his cause, I agree with the folks who said both, but for a slightly different reason. LF's career was inextricably intertwined with his cause. He saw himself as the leader of the progressive movement. The sensational tactics that raised his own profile also raised the profile of his progressive ideas.
At the end of the chapter, I mentioned that LF had spoken of the progressive movement during his Money Power speech, but I did not give the context. From the Congressional Record:
Does anyone doubt [the bankers'] hostility to the declared policies of President Roosevelt, and the progressive movement throughout the country, and their readiness, nay, their determination, to make an end of it at any cost?"
And later...
When they do they will find a Republican majority in both the House and Senate halting and retarding every progressive step, and by so doing they are daily swelling the ranks of the idle and unemployed.
This is the first time that anyone mentioned the progressive movement in the congressional record, though LF had been using the phrase since at least 1906 when he spoke to the press about the progressive movement in Wisconsin. Note his laudatory reference to TR, despite their frequent disagreements.
Finally, I'd like to thank Kacy for drawing the parallel between LF's filibuster and Ted Cruz's 21-hour speech against Obamacare. Many also saw Cruz's speech as "pointless and stupid," to quote TR, but it drew attention to his cause and helped propel him to the forefront of the right-wing. (OK, maybe second place). Cruz has also been known for attaching amendments to bills in order force senators to vote against them the record, another tactic from the Fighting Bob playbook.
I certainly agree with Bentley that LF was a much more original thinker than Cruz, but I disagree with your statement that Cruz "doesn't have any long range plans." Here is a telling quote from an old New Yorker interview:
“Many voices in Washington say the fight that we had last fall was not successful,” Cruz told me. “Like any good litigator, at times you think of a battle as a long-term battle. You don’t always accomplish everything in the first skirmish. As a consequence of millions of people last summer and fall getting engaged in that battle, I believe we dramatically elevated the national debate over the harms of Obamacare.”
Cruz may have lost the Republican nomination this year, but I'm certain that we haven't heard the last of him.
I'm not a big fan of the filibuster. I don't mind when they are speaking directly to the bill or policy opposed but otherwise, it mainly seems to be a gigantic waste of time. At most you can delay the vote but even where a bill is run out of town, so to speak, it usually comes back in a different form in the next session. What it does accomplish is exactly what you mentioned, Michael. I too don't think we've seen the last of Ted Cruz.....and that's a doggone shame.
I agree with the others - the filibuster section was really the action of this chapter. I've wondered how it works and how they actually make it for such a long time. What a tremendous personal sacrifice that was for LF! Too bad it was unsuccessful overall since his colleagues dropped the ball. I'm sure it's hard to keep focus on a single goal and hold the floor for that many hours.Speaking about the laser-focus on getting re-elected, has anyone seen information on the upcoming release of "The Confessions of Congressman X"? What I've read so far is horrifying, especially if it's true. Some of the teasers were about what congress members will do / ignore in order to focus on getting re-elected.
The Confessions of Congressman X (no author photo since the author won't admit to writing it... :) I'd be open to a bookclub discussion on that book. I know it wouldn't be dull...
I think LF was willing to filibuster because he thought it was the right thing to do. To date, his actions hadn't exactly made him popular with everyone, so I don't think that was his motivation. I disagree with the need to put something in place, even if it's wrong, to let the constituents think that congress is doing something.
Good work on the citation, Robyn. Even with an anonymous author, you can do the citation in this fashion:
by Congressman X (no photo)
We also have to consider the time, and filibustering and speeches were very important. They had the audience. Politics was a real past-time and people flocked to the Congressional galleries. LF packed the house.Today, we have sports, and I think it plays a role in how much harder it is to get a cause noticed.
Bryan wrote: "We also have to consider the time, and filibustering and speeches were very important. They had the audience. Politics was a real past-time and people flocked to the Congressional galleries. LF pac..."I agree - with everything being nearly immediate, it's hard for issues in congress and politics to get people's attention beyond a tweet or a sound bite. I'm not sure how we change this - but I know we need to.
Vincent wrote: "Tomi wrote: "This was not one of my favorite chapters - just not too interested in fiscal policy/issues. Can't we have a good murder or some other blood and guts? "Then you are together with Tedd..."
He has always been one of my favorite presidents!
Mod
This chapter is also interesting in that we now see President Roosevelt as he enters the lame-duck phase of his presidency, straining to abandon the balancing act between the conservatives and radical reformers announcing a "campaign against privilege" as he "demanded legislation to regulate the stock market, expand antitrust powers, and require employers to pay for workplace injuries." (P. 110). He also argued for the ICC to have the power to regulate the railroads as fought for in the past by La Follette, thus angering the Standpatters but well received by the Democrats. I like the quote cited in this chapter from one of Roosevelt's letters to his son, "Like Bob La Follette and Albert Beveridge, he allowed himself to lift his gaze beyond the narrow horizon of his presidency, for he no longer had anything to lose." (P. 111).
Robyn wrote: "it's hard for issues in congress and politics to get people's attention beyond a tweet or a sound bite. I'm not sure how we change this - but I know we need to. ..."I think Steffens' problems about going beyond his articles that showed cases of corruption to wanting to change the system to be universal. It's one thing to write a great newspaper or magazine piece, but a whole different matter to reform.
I am just not sure about LaFollette and his motivations. He obviously was a dedicated man and would not move or negotiate from his stated principles. Surely he knew that he was fighting a losing game but he continued to prevail. His filibuster was amazing but for naught. Someone asked if he was shifty, self-seeking or a martyr...........I would probably chose "martyr" which seems the closest word that comes to mind or maybe just strong-willed and principled.
What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair assessment or were they just looking for scapegoatsI think the money power is the people at the top. Like the Railroad company, banks , Wall street. I think also the politicians like the Standpatters who use their positions of to help moneyed interest like the "Railroads". I think any man or woman seen using their wealth to gain more power through government or by other means at the expense of others - was tagged by that name. I think that it was a fair assessment. People were using their own wealth and power to further themselves and not thinking about the people they are hurting.
2.Who was the "money power" denouncing as public enemies?
I think anyone who was denouncing them and calling them out. or anyone in the Government trying to introduce that would go against the moneyed interest.
3. What crimes were Bryan talking about and/or who questionned their methods (the money power's)?
I am going to sign onto sign onto Savannah answer to this and use the example of the Rail Roads.
"The crimes - railroads charging farmers exorbitant fees causing the farmers to go bankrupt. Major industries where workers were slaves in all but name. The bankers having special fees for those industries giving them kickbacks. Those who questioned their methods were the farmers, the factory workers, the reformers, such as, Bryan and La Follette" ~ Savannah
4. Mr. William Jennings Bryan in his famous election speech: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity, It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. It can only be overthrown by the awakened conscience of the nation".
The above is the full quote. Do you believe that the motivation for this kind of speech was strictly political? Do you think we are hearing the same messages today in this primary? Do you agree with Bryan or not? Are things that bad? Are the politicians trying to make the bankers out to be the bad guys because they want a scapegoat? Without the bankers and Morgan in 1907 - the country would have gone belly up, is Wall Street the problem with government or is the government the problem with Wall Street?
I think that we are hearing the same message today, I think its a bit of both. I think both wall street and politicians can play a role in what is going . I think that politicians are quick to blame moneyed interest of today, never mind they have no problem getting in bed with them. But don't want to deal with the repercussions/fallout of something like the panic 1907 or just recently the recession of 2008. I think that wall street with Government is the problem. J.P. Morgan found a temporary solution- but it didn't solve the problem.
5. Are the money problems that the country is facing a result of our changing culture and what our expectations are as to how much we should be compensated and paid for our labor? Have we become lazy or are the major corporations taking advantage of the people, making outrageous profits while at the same time paying them so little that they cannot afford to live?
I personally feel that corporation are taking advantage of people. I don't think it can be qualified as lazy if your working 40+ hrs on starvation wage. And you still cant afford to feed your family. Or the fact that some companies can just fire their employees and move their company to a different country just so they can pay their employees even less. or the fact that you have wealthy people not paying their fair share when it comes to taxes. the fact that you have some wealthy people paying less then their secretaries. People are finally waking up and questioning this.
Rachel, you hit the nail on the head regarding the blame being thrown from the bankers/money men to the politicians and back again (I am paraphrasing of course). One man and one man only, J.P. Morgan saved the US from sinking beneath waves during the panic of 1907 by infusing money into the system. Granted it was meant as a temporary measure since his wealth was not unlimited, nor can I imagine him doing it a second time but the question is........what or who put us in the financial situation in which we found ourselves that made Morgan's actions necessary? I think the author has fairly "spread the blame" if you will. With the Republican party split asunder, the government couldn't get their feet on the ground long enough to address the coming Panic and Morgan, one of the great robber barons, flexed his muscles by coming to the rescue. But didn't that cause the government to become even more beholden to the "money man" thus giving him and his cohorts even more power to ensure that legislation favored them? It was a vicious circle.
1. What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair assessment or were they just looking for scapegoats? Bryan's quote concisely and astutely described the prevailing power conditions in 1907. Corporate leaders and bankers were using legislation to advance their wealth and control to the deepening disadvantage of the majority of citizens. LF named bankers the "Money Power" during his speeches to the Senate about proposed currency reform. The nickname was a fair assessment because their actions reflected only a desire to preserve their power. The proposed legislation was the minimum possible to restore some stability to the monetary system. It was very telling and cynical that Aldrich himself knew his reform bill would not solve monetary problems, but just put a band-aid on a bad situation to help Republicans get through the next election.
2. Who was the "money power" denouncing as public enemies?
Anyone who wanted to put more money and power into the hands of the little guy. So people like LF and Bryan.
3. What crimes were Bryan talking about and/or who questionned their methods (the money power's)?
Bryan referred to the consolidation of power perpetrated by the trusts, large corporations, and banks at the expense of workers and ordinary citizens' personal safety, financial security, quality of life, and ability to influence legislation.
Bryan was frustrated with the "Money Power" that did not want to change the gold-based monetary system, even when panics and recessions financially ruined many Americans.
4. Mr. William Jennings Bryan in his famous election speech: "The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity, It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods, or throw light upon its crimes. It can only be overthrown by the awakened conscience of the nation".
The above is the full quote. Do you believe that the motivation for this kind of speech was strictly political? Do you think we are hearing the same messages today in this primary? Do you agree with Bryan or not? Are things that bad? Are the politicians trying to make the bankers out to be the bad guys because they want a scapegoat? Without the bankers and Morgan in 1907 - the country would have gone belly up, is Wall Street the problem with government or is the government the problem with Wall Street?
The reason that Bryan was a good speaker was his talent for great content. From what I've read about Bryan is that he was influenced by his religion, so I feel that compassion was a partial factor in his views. However, he was a politician first, and used his tremendous orator skills to gain support. Given that the bankers caused the panic with their control of the money supply and an attempt to corner the market, the fact that Morgan stepped in to rectify the situation was simply a survival tactic. As Aldrich's later actions proved, the men at the top had no intention of making any real change, even if it meant more of the same extreme financial cycles.
In this year's election, we are hearing some similar themes from the populist candidate Sanders and to a lesser extent Trump. Are things that bad? It depends on your perspective. Could things be better? Definitely. How that should look is the question.
5. Are the money problems that the country is facing a result of our changing culture and what our expectations are as to how much we should be compensated and paid for our labor? Have we become lazy or are the major corporations taking advantage of the people, making outrageous profits while at the same time paying them so little that they cannot afford to live?
Our culture has certainly changed since 1907, and there is a lively debate about how much people should be compensated. Technology is changing the nature of work, and automation is taking over more and more tasks that humans used to do, from factory production to Wall Street analysis. Humans are going to have to invest in themselves if they want to work, and that means education. I'm not in favor of giving people a certain wage if they've made no effort to be worth that value. At the same time, corporations should not be allowed advantageous tax conditions for moving abroad, or to bring in low-cost tech workers on a visa at the expense of citizens who are seeking work.
Where are you Theodore when our country needs you so badly?
Pamela wrote: "I think the argument of the "money powers" and those who fight against them is probably the oldest confrontation in this country. This nation was established on the idea of giving the maximum amoun..."I think you give capitalists a bad wrap - farmers are capitalists - barbers - Steve Jobs was one
are you talking about those who move in areas bordered by regulations and government controls that can give them unfair advantages?
I thin few business people think about how far they can go towards breaking the law.
I think "freedom" is a subjective work - can you shoot a gun for target practice - yes you are free in the empty desert - not so in shopping center parking lot
Lorna wrote: "I agree with the consensus of the group that this chapter was exciting. I think that is partly because the filibuster is, although sometimes maddening as in the "green eggs and ham" filibuster agai..."I think LF was not a martyr but using the filibuster that was a "tool" available to him. Martyr is, to my mind, the wrong conclusion.
Rachel wrote: "What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it a fair assessm..."Your last paragraph is the result of our people not insisting that their fellow citizens achieve a "living wage" - that today is more the result of politicians , our politicians, not raising the minimum wage rather than thinking that we could uniformly achieve this result just by hoping that business people "do the right thing"
Please do not forget that most people work for small companies - a large percentage of small firms fail or do not make much money - the median entrepreneur is not a businessman but is rather a barber or plumber etc in his own business.
Rich people not paying their share is also at the doorstep of our politicians (except Bernie I guess).
Just a couple of comments on the long term responsibility in a democracy. as a non book related side note I would suggest, if you have the time, listening to Obama's graduation address at Howard University - available on podcast.
Mod
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-wa...
Transcript:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05...
Vincent wrote: "Rachel wrote: "What do you think of William Jennings Bryan's quote? Who is or are the money power that he was talking about? How did this group or man or men get tagged with that "nickname"? Was it..."(view spoiler)
Bentley wrote: "Vincent from the Library of Economics and Liberty:http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/A..."
thanks - will read soon & comment
Mod
Nita
Holly
Hana
Mark
Francie
Betty
John
Jason Page
Rhonda
Teresa
Lacey from Mississippi
Ann D
Mary Ellen
Steve D
Jan from Southern Cal
Gary from Penn
Mike M
Laura R
Alice
Mary B
Nathan C
Paul W
Kristie
obs20
Phillip
Charles
Lewis
Have Not Posted on Week One or on the Week Two threads or on the Week Three or Four threads or Week Five
10. Cosmic - sent PM
15. Steven M - sent PM
17. Michael F - DC - sent PM
18. Karen L - Arkansas - sent PM
19. Harold J - sent PM
message 78:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 24, 2016 01:00PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.
However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.
Folks who have participated on the Week One, Week Two, Week Three, Week Four thread or any combination of the above will be bolded and Weeks missing will be noted. All group members receiving books in this offer should be posting at least once per weekly thread in a timely basis. If I missed you on any of the Weekly threads - send me a PM saying which week is in question and tell the message number that I should look at.
(Updated as of May 3rd at 4:00AM - up through message 48)
Bentley - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Jill - Weeks One, Two. Three, Four, Five
Christopher for Southern Cal - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Tomi - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Nita - Weeks One, Two, please get caught up by posting on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Peter - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Teri - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Holly - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Hana - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five not yet
Nick - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five
Mark - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Francie - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Week Five - not yet
Lorna - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Vincent - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Betty - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Mary from SC - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five
Rachel - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Jovita - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five
Jordan - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five
Michael - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Savannah - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five
John - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Four , Week Five - not yet
Kressel - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
David from Nebraska - Weeks One, Two, Three. Four, Five
Simonetta - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Jason - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Other Jason Watts - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Pamela - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Rhonda - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Bryan - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five
Teresa - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Jim from Michigan - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Glynn - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four , Five
Lacey from Mississippi - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Kacy - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Helga - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Ann D from Nebraska - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Robyn from New Mexico - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Robin (second Robin) - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Mary Ellen - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Four, Week Five - not yet
Steve D - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Jan from So Cal - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Jason Page - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Gary from Penn - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Week Five - not yet
Mike M - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Four, Week Five - not yet
Laura R - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Alice - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Jack - Weeks One, Two, Three, Four, Five
Mary B from Tennessee - Weeks One, Two, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Nathan C - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Paul W - Weeks Two, please go back and respond to the preliminary questions for Week One, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Kristie - Weeks One, please respond to the Week Two questions, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
obs20 - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Phillip - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, please go back and respond to Week Three, Week Four - not yet, Week Five - not yet
Charles - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, please go back and respond on Week Three, Week Four, Week Five - not yet
Lewis - AuthorQ&A, no response to preliminary questions and not keeping up with weekly posting - go back and post on Week One done but Two, Three and Four and interact with posters, Week Five - not yet
Robert W - new poster - Week Five
Have Not Posted on Week One or on the Week Two threads or on the Week Three or Four threads or Week Five
10. Cosmic - sent PM
15. Steven M - sent PM
17. Michael F - DC - sent PM
18. Karen L - Arkansas - sent PM
19. Harold J - sent PM
Mod
The seventh week's reading assignment is:
Week Seven - May 23rd - May 29th
Chapter Seven - The Tariff - (pages 123 - 142)
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
For those of you who need to catch up check each of the previous six threads including this one and make sure that you have posted on that thread and it is noted. If in fact you have not posted, make sure you respond on that thread to the topics for discussion and the next time I do an update - I will note your new responses so that you can get caught up.
You can still post on all of the Weekly threads to get caught up or if you are starting out new and want to read the book by all means post any time.
Book Recipients however should get caught up as soon as you can and are able (we realize everybody reads at different speeds) - we have reached the mid point of the book discussion. There are ten chapters in the book and this is Week Seven.
So try to catch up on your posting and your reading.
Here are the links to the previous Weekly Chapters to check your progress:
Week Six - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Week Five - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Week Four
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Week Three
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Week Two
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Week One
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
And also part of the T's and C's is interacting with the author and asking a question or two - here is that link to the Q&A thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Take advantage of the author being with us on this journey.
Remember everybody - you can always get caught up - we are here waiting to read your posts and look forward to it.
Vincent wrote: "Why do population low farm states get so many subsidies for their residents?..."It is also what committee power these farm state reps and senators have. Historically, they dominate the agriculture committees, thus giving them subsidies.
Today, you actually see reps and senators have smaller staffs than before, and so, lobbyists actually started to write the bills, rather than staffers. This is a real problem.
Mod
This is more than a problem.
message 82:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 24, 2016 06:31PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Folks these readers have not posted on Week Five: (folks please catch up with all of the threads) - we are always here.
Nita
Holly
Hana
Mark
Francie
Betty
John
Jason Page
Rhonda
Teresa
Lacey from Mississippi
Ann D
Mary Ellen
Steve D
Jan from Southern Cal
Gary from Penn
Mike M
Laura R
Alice
Mary B
Nathan C
Paul W
Kristie
obs20
Phillip
Charles
Lewis
Have Not Posted on any thread
Cosmic
Steven M
Michael F
Karen L
Harold J
1, 2, 3) The "money power" were big business drivers (bankers, developers, railroaders, etc.) who dominated, controlled, and guided the economy, society, and people's lives. They did need to be accountable and subject to the rules along with everyone else (probably what Bryan was trying to do), but was it necessary to say that ALL people were their enemies...to use such extreme language, when in fact we all benefit from what is provided by big business?
4) Are not all politicians politically motivated (by definition)? At the same time I would hope that many would also be driven by a desire to make our nation a better and more equitable place...but of course how to define and flesh that out is where the fireworks begin...
5) I don't believe that profits are the cause of our money problems. The lack of profits in some countries can be the cause of serious problems in many other countries. I think that our high expectations often cause us to get ourselves into financial difficulty. Two hundred years ago, we probably had small money problems in government (at least in terms of the national debt). Did that make it a better time (given the lack of roads, electricity, housing, schools, opportunities, etc.)? We have become so used to everything working well, comfortably, and according to all our needs and desires that we keep pushing for more...beyond the capacity of our government to deliver.
The political power plays in chapter 5 (e.g. pages 115-116) are intriguing and fascinating. Michael Wolraich has done a great job bringing these incidents to life for us.
Political games such as the filibuster described on pages 118-120 contribute to the disgust that the public often feels toward politicians. They might do well to consider the desires of the public in these situations.
Lewis wrote: "4) Are not all politicians politically motivated (by definition)? At the same time I would hope that many would also be driven by a desire to make our nation a better and more equitable place...but..."But one cannot ignore those in politics who do strive for the good
of America - but they must be politically successful to succeed in bringing change in the political arena. - if you can find none in most eras I would be surprised.
Lewis wrote: "Political games such as the filibuster described on pages 118-120 contribute to the disgust that the public often feels toward politicians. They might do well to consider the desires of the public ..."unless it is done to stop a bill you oppose then it is often OK - it is a rule they have forged in the governmental body
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Confessions of Congressman X (other topics)The Confessions of Congressman X (other topics)
Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies About the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior Into a Raging Homosexual (other topics)
The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power (other topics)
The Politicians and the Egalitarians: The Hidden History of American Politics (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Congressman X (other topics)Michael Wolraich (other topics)
Sean Wilentz (other topics)
Steve Fraser (other topics)
Lewis L. Gould (other topics)
More...
so he surrendered to Aldrich. Poor LF had to fight with what help he could get.
We complain all the time of the revolving door with industries making regulations - they do that because the government oversight folks sometimes have to surrender to them as they have no expertise. TR had more options here. Current legislators should find the options and resources now in the pressing issues before them