ROSE NOLEN: The rich leave others behind in controlling politics

Tuesday, January 31, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CST

Gee, there really was life after the South Carolina Republican primary. On the following day the sun rose and set, and the earth continued to go around the same as if nothing had happened.

The reason I was surprised is because these people have such a high opinion of themselves that I wasn’t certain we would be allowed to carry on with the rest of our lives without their permission.

I think this business with the super PACs is ridiculous. While some people are without food and medicine, millions of dollars are being squandered on television advertisements in support of political candidates. That people feel no sense of guilt or shame in throwing money away while people go without life's necessities is dishonorable.

I would hope that now that the American people have seen proof of the unfairness in our tax codes that there will be no time wasted in getting this situation corrected. The fact that anyone would be allowed to collect more than $21 million in assets for the year and taxed less than 14 percent, as was Mitt Romney, is ridiculous. Now, maybe everyone will have a good idea why people are in the streets, protesting.

It's amazing how people in this country can be so aware of the wrongs being committed against people in other countries and be so content with the evils practiced at home. For the past few years, we have been undergoing this horrible recession where people are being forced out of their homes and onto the streets while millionaires are wallowing in beds of money, piling it up in places like the Cayman Islands.

To pretend this is not common knowledge is one thing Americans are good at. But once the crime has been exposed to the public it is no longer possible to pretend we did not see what we saw. If we continue to live with this unfair, unjust tax system and do not demand that Congress put an end to it, then we have to admit that our government is really out of control.

Where do we think people get the money to invest in super PACs? Well, this is probably what they have leftover in tax money. This is the time they pay back the people who have made these rules that allowed them to keep the money by voting them into office where they can get the opportunity to do the same thing again and again.

What the rich fail to share with us is the fact that we are not all free to be enterprising. They prefer to say we hate the free enterprise system. Actually, in order to participate in that system, one has to have money. In order to keep people out it is only necessary to ensure that salaries are kept low and the cost of living kept so high that it takes every dime of salary in order to live. This is the song that describes the journey the average person takes on his ride to watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

That's why keeping the Republicans and the Democrats at each others throats is so important. The possibility that they might stop fighting long enough to realize that they are the pawns in the game of Get Rich Quick is too great a risk. Can you imagine what might happen if Mr. and Mrs. Average American put their heads together and figured out how to relieve themselves of the tax problem?

Now, with the super PACs in the game, it will undoubtedly be harder to win this fight. But if people will drag out their old history books and read to remember again that this still is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then they will go the distance until things turn out right.

It is unfortunate that we have allowed our education system to wither. Now is the time we need our best young minds working together to help solve this problem.

Think about it.

You can join the conversation with Rose M. Nolen by calling her at 882-5734 or emailing her at

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Michael Williams January 31, 2012 | 9:43 a.m.

Rose: We (you, me, everyone else) apparently pay a couple of billion each year on chewing gum.

Far exceeding any political election.

You need to be yellin' at the chewers amongst us.

You might also want to ask, "Who gets all that election money, anyway?"

You said, "Actually, in order to participate in that system, one has to have money."

That is incorrect. Your sentence should read, "Actually, in order to participate in that system, one has to have [a way to] make money.

Huge difference...

The corrected sentence calls for a whole different way of looking at the world, new strategies, better decisions, not buying junk, understanding finance, buying assets, and ESPECIALLY paying attention in school, thereby becoming a diversely-educated person. One is a proven strategy for success; the other is a whine for no success.

I try to follow those strategies that make folks rich. So, in case someone asks (again) why I tend to support the rich against Rose's type of argument, the answer is that you'll be coming after me next.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor January 31, 2012 | 9:52 a.m.

Here we go again with the fair. I just posted this on another thread...

Websters defines fair as, "free from self interest or prejudice".

The only tax system I can think of that would fit the definition of fair is one where everyone pays the same tax regardless of their personal situation. If you make one pay more tax than another then you are acting in ones self interest and are prejudiced against the other. So, I guess Rose and the rest of the progressives are really saying we should have a fair tax where everyone pays the same tax.

(Report Comment)
Mitchell Moore January 31, 2012 | 10:10 a.m.

The poor are not getting poorer.

It is true, however, that the rich, (who, to their credit are the big producers and by far pay most of the taxes) will always control the government. Yet, liberals want a big and powerful government.

Liberals got control of Congress and the Presidency and the result is $5 trillion in new debt before they are done...economic catastrophe for all (except the rich who can protect themselves). We are fairly unable to influence either major party to a significant degree. Everyone (except the rich) feels helpless in that regard. You have the liberals in power and they go crazy nuts borrowing money we do not have and cannot pay back. The Republicans got in power and wanted to build a bridge to nowhere.

That is why we are better off with a limited government which does little more than provide police, the court system, and a military to protect us against people who use force and fraud against us. Individuals do a better job spending their money than government bureaucrats.

Can you demand more from your local, state, and federal politicians than a promise to give you a share of borrowed money or money taken from some other constituency?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro January 31, 2012 | 10:53 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Richard Saunders January 31, 2012 | 11:01 a.m.

Politics is evil. That the rich utilize this method to control all others is not surprising.

Of course, for some reason, no one ever considers removing the source of evil from society, but rather, only seek to harness it for their own ends, not recognizing that very desire is what empowers the evil in the first place.

A truly civilized society is one where individuals recognize the benefits of governing their own self, not the madness where everyone tries to control everyone else "for their own good," relying on criminals to carry out so-called public mandates.

Democracy is nothing but mob-rule, dressed up in cheap suits. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the very reality that surrounds us all.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 31, 2012 | 11:12 a.m.

Those that have been successful, i.e. Rich, in this country are probably the ones best qualified to run our country and determine the legislation that governs us - as long as they are Honest. Those educated solely for this purpose, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama most generally are not. Some years ago liberals decided it would be in vogue to shout get the rich out of our government and "we should elect those earning about $20,000 as They will know what we poorer people need". A Congressman at the time was earning $42,000. My first thought was wouldn't this salary automatically dis-qualify them?

The liberal and Ms. Roses constant reminders of differences between rich and poor with no recognition of the ability of one becoming the other or the hazard of the reverse is repeated because it works for those she cannot honestly identify with. "If we continue to live with this unfair, unjust tax system and do not demand that Congress put an end to it, then we have to admit that our government is really out of control." Democrat leaders fight changes in SS and tax code tooth and nail. Only Republicans and candidate Newt Gingrich offer Any change to prevent the crimes to which she refers, now and, or any time in the future. Why would she not eagerly describe the efforts of those people? I suppose she prefers "the song that describes the journey the average person takes on his ride to watch the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro January 31, 2012 | 11:32 a.m.

Rick Perry is a Bilderberg. So is Bill Clinton.
My concern is that Rick Perry endorses Newt Gingrich.
Clinton obviously will once again endorse Obama.
Bilderberg's are the "rich" we should be concerned about. Not those who are wealthy because of capitalism.
The "occupy movement" are pawns for the revolutionary puppet masters.
The tea party movement was much more accurate with regards to their concerns about those who erode the U.S. constitution.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 31, 2012 | 3:12 p.m.

Hey, Rose. Here's a few other names to add to your "rich" list.

Your article only mentions Mitt Romney, but he seemed all alone and I thought you might want to add 61 more names.

(Report Comment)
David Sautner January 31, 2012 | 3:15 p.m.

I cannot believe the comments made on this thread. Even conservative views of History acknowledge that rule by the rich and not by Law has always been the primary source of society's ills.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 31, 2012 | 3:24 p.m.

David: I believe you missed the point from many of us.

Rose is one-sided. That means she has an underlying agenda which is designed to gore an ox (PAC) she opposes, but not one she supports (unions and the like). She is very political under a guise of being "reasonable".

If she was truly non-partisan with her argument and writings, many of us might be on board. She is not "fair" about being "fair".

I do agree with her comment that education has withered. But, her fix is more money. My fix is something else entirely, but that's another topic. So, we agree with the problem, but not the solution.

(Report Comment)
frank christian January 31, 2012 | 4:22 p.m.

Ray - Why not mention Council on Foreign Relations and
Trilateral Commission and automatically become a "conspiracy theorist"?

This the problem that as far as I can see, we have to live with. They seemingly all belong to one group of the other. Every President since LBJ and excepting Reagan and W.Bush has belonged to one or other of above. W. obviously was listing to his father, often. Newt Gingrich, since we first heard of him has spoken all the correct words, the opposite of J. Carter and B. Clinton, his televised college course "Renewing American Civilization," seemed words every American should hear. D's claimed he illegally used funds to promote "his" views, for political purposes. The only charge of over 80, dug up by Congressman D. Bonier for the House Ethics Committee that would stick ($300,000 fine which he reportedly borrowed from Senator R. Dole to pay. Then I read that He is a member of CFR. Arch liberal actor Ron Sliver some years ago suddenly appeared on a political panel, announced that he was now a member of CFR and sounded more conservative than R. Reagan.

For David Sautner, "rule by the rich and not by Law has always been the primary source of society's ills.", is agreed to, but "rich" have ruled since time began. They have no intention of turning it over to "the people" anywhere and imo our only choice is to try to determine which of their candidates has All the people uppermost in their plans, then hope and pray they don't change after election.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush January 31, 2012 | 7:35 p.m.

Since you speak the truth,
Rose, vitriol will follow.
But please don't you stop.

Watch their fangs when I
Agree. Thank you for your strength
And your honesty.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.