Just as this election may not result in the worst possible outcome, there is really no best possible outcome, just bad to worst possible outcomes.
Good Outcome: Republicans LOSE seats.
Bad Outcome: Democrats keep the same disfunctional "majority".
Worse Outcome: Republicans gain seats.
Worst Possible Outcome: Republicans take both houses.
Under Obama and the Democratic majority we have suffered over the past two years; suffered the devastating effects of Republican "trickle up" economics, off-shoring jobs, endless wars, corporate entitlements to personhood and unlimited "free speech" through bribery, and obstruction of ALL efforts at reducing the suffering. Unfortunately suffering can breed insanity, and cruel exploitation by soulless amoral powers. The suffering will continue.
If you think the past two years were bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Since one of the two major political parties in the country is run by a "news" network, we'll be seeing FOX (R) set the agenda for our total collapse. President Palin, or one of their other employees, will surely finish the job. Soon these will be the missed and yearned-for “good old days”.
The propaganda is working. "Obamacare" is death panels. (To FOX (R) viewers.)The Stimulus failed. (Except when used as a GOP photo-op with a big check. And $288 billion out of the $800 billion cost of the recovery act was composed entirely of tax cuts. Yes, tax cuts! And according to factcheck.org. “In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise. Observers may differ on whether that’s a reasonable return on investment, but it’s not accurate to say that the stimulus harmed employment or that it didn’t help.”)
Obama is spending us towards doom. (Never mind President Obama and the congressional Democrats cut the deficit. Oh, yes, not that it matters. The first Obama budget was billions less than the final Bush budget.)
The truth does not matter. We can try to tell the truth but it will be rejected if it does not fit the belief system nurtured and fertilized by the Right. FOX (R) manufactures "fair and balanced" propaganda. Fair for the GOP, and balanced against Dems.
Americans have been indoctrinated into wanting to give more power to Republicans. Yes, with their record, we know for certain they'll fix everything...in favor of the economic elites, as usual.
Failure will once again be embraced. But that's OK. Liberals will still get the blame. FOX (R) will tell us so, and have they ever been wrong?
Now that they have bought the government, it is only a matter of time for all the wealth to “trickle up”. Neo-feudalism, here we come. It was the “divine right of kings” that assured the lock on power in medieval feudalism; it is the “divine right of wealth” that assures power now.
The "Fair and balanced" kool-ade cult has been pouring for a long time. Millions have been indoctrinated to believe Obama is a Marxist Muslim.
This cult is nothing short of a Fourth Reich, strangling our democracy by seizing near total control of highest bidder elections, and three corrupted branches of government. This will not be pretty. They will hurt people...again.
The American Fourth Reich is still destroying our freedom and democracy from within. We must fight them by calling them what they are, fascists. My American Heritage Dictionary says: Fascism n. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
USA 2010: Democracy is dead. Reason is dead. Truth is dead. Fascism is winning. Insanity rules. We will expect different results from the same crew that always works against the interests of 98 percent of Americans. That is the definition of Insanity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
74 comments:
I don't think there has been a shift to the GOP. I think that the Democratic politicians in DC did so much to alienate, frustrate, and demoralize the party bases that they will lose the midterms fairly badly.
Dubya, you are obviously a sharp guy. (Hey, the fact that you love the outdoors and Wild Turkey proves that!) Why you don't see the contradictions in some of your statements though baffles me.
You gripe about companies "off-shoring jobs" and I share that gripe. What you don't realize is it is a combination of excessive regualtion, the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the extremely high cost of labor thanks to Democratic-supporting unions that are ultimately the cause for large companies to have to look to foreign sources of labor and production in order to remain in business and be competitive, sir.
I share your disgust for corporate "free speech" and think that only private citizens should be allowed to vote and contribute to candidates or campaigns.
As for Obamacare, it does not address any of the problems it purportedly was enacted to fix. Indeed it does only exacerbate these problems, including creating rationing that ultimately leads to the defacto "death pannels" that you mock. PLEASE,see this link here and watch the six minute video:
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2010/10/dr-david-janda-explains-perils-of.html
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association recent polling states that in 2013 when Obamacare goes into full effect, 46% of our physicians will leave the medical field. Please tell me how that won't result in rationing, especially for the elderly?
Next, when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over congress, the debt was $8 Trillion. It is now north of $13 Trillion. That is under the Democratic leadership of congress, and then under Obama. His unfunded mandates and proposed budget items will balloon that debt past $74 Trillion.
Please don't try and convince us that after all the money Obama and the Democrats have spent and wish to spend that they have reduced our national debt. It really strains your credibility past the breaking point, Dubya.
Lastly, you gripe about America getting ready to return power to the GOP despite their recent record. I share in your doubts here.
I pray that these knuckleheads aren't merely paying lip service and have actually gotten the message from the people, or they will be thrown out in 2012 along with Obama, and you will see the rise of strong conservative and liberal third parties as the Democrats and GOP are sidelined for a decade or better.
The bottom line is that much of what you say in complaint is accurate and I absolutely share your sentiments. The ironic and contradictory thing is that your prescription is to keep the Democrats in power to do more of the same that got us into this mess in the beginning, sir. It doesn't make sense, Dubya.
Sorry for the long comment, btw...
Paine, you are a cornucopia of corporate/conservative/GOP misinformation and disinformation. You ought to be on Fox or the U.S. Chamber's payroll, if you're not already.
"You gripe about companies "off-shoring jobs" and I share that gripe. What you don't realize is it is a combination of excessive regualtion . . ."
In fact, regulation has grown weaker and more sporadic over the past 30 years, but especially over the 2001-2009 period, thanks to The Worst President in U.S. History. He did things like appoint a mining industry executive to head the Bureau of Mine Safety. We've seen how that worked out. You evidently missed it, so to help fill the void, try reading Bush appointee rolled back many mine safety and health regulations. That's one of many such examples.
". . . the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world"
That is downright laughable ― and believe me, many corporations are laughing last and laughing best. For example, they are ROTFL at Exxon Mobile, which paid NO taxes in the U.S. on gross income of $311 billion, pretax income of $37.3 billion, last year. Yes, Exxon's tax rate was 47 percent, but by moving profits around overseas, working loopholes and other chicanery, it paid zip in U.S. taxes last year, preferring to leave that little detail to you and me.
GE did even better. With sales of $157 billion and pretax income of $10.3 billion, GE actually got itself a $1.1 billion REBATE.
Similarly, poor suffering Bank of America had sales of $120 billion, pretax income of $4.4 billion and got itself a $1.9 billion REBATE.
Ford Motor Co., sales of $118 billion, pretax income $3 billion, paid $69 million in income tax, or 2.3 percent. That's a long way from 40 percent.
(continues)
T. Paine wrote (continued) ". . . and the extremely high cost of labor thanks to Democratic-supporting unions that are ultimately the cause for large companies to have to look to foreign sources of labor and production in order to remain in business and be competitive, sir."
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "In 2009, the union membership rate -- the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union -- was 12.3 percent."
Now, you might argue, with some accuracy, that improvements unions secure for their members in wages, hours and benefits carry over to some number of nonunion workers as well. But a tail of just 12.3 percent doesn't wag much dog any more. That's especially true because the U.S. has been an employers' market for workers for most of the past 30 years, except for a brief period during Clinton's presidency.
But what really blows your conservative talking point all to hell, Paine, is this N.Y. Times story pointing out that most union members work for government.
To recap, a small portion of U.S. workers belong to unions to begin with, most of those work for government, but you're telling us the very small fraction of unionized workers in private industry are forcing our big, tax-poor corporations to choose between insolvency and offshoring and outsourcing.
Give me a break! That defies logic on its face and doesn't hold up when you examine the facts.
Paine, do your homework. Get some actual facts from reputable sources outside the right-wing noise machine. Then stop and think before regurgitating propaganda.
You might start with this Times story:
Most Corporations Skipped Payments From '98 to '05, GAO Says
You can also download and read the report from that GAO study released in mid-2008.
Anderson, indeed there was some regulations scaled back under Bush, but not anywhere near enough.
As for appointing a mining executive to the post for mine safety, I couldn't say whether that is necessarily a bad decision or not. It would depend upon his knowledge and commitment to the issue. I gather, with the mine disasters that occured in the U.S. that there was indeed negligence to say the least.
Next, America does have the 2nd highest tax rate in the world, and Japan announced that it was going to cut it corporate taxes, thus giving us the honor of being number one.
In addition, 47 states have additional corporate taxes added onto the federal tax thus making businesses wanting to locate in the U.S. even less palatable.
As for these large corporations that seem to have found ways around this, well that speaks to the need to reduce our tax rates and cut out exemptions and loopholes that these companies are utilizing for their bottom lines.
Keep in mind though, that particularly with large corporations, they don't end up paying any taxes in the long run because all of those costs are eventually passed on to their customers via the price of their goods or services.
See the two links from the non-partisan taxfoundation.org on this topic:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22917.html
(the table at the bottom of the preceding link is especially enlightening.)
and
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/230.html
(cont.)
Most unions contractually tie their wages to a certain percentage above that of minimum wage. They then, understandably, lobby for increases in state and federal minimum wages. This alone drives labor costs up significantly for the entire nation.
The fact that many of our government workers are unionized only adds to the national debt, as these workers' salaries are paid by us taxpayers.
By the way, it used to be that government jobs paid significantly less than the private sector, but workers were compensated by job stability and great benefits.
Nowadays the average government job also pays far more than its private sector counter-part. THAT is crap and should be scaled back accordingly to the way it was.
In the example of the auto-industry, it is precisely because of union wages and costs that GM and Chrysler became insolvent and thus needed our money to save them.
Bankruptcy would have been far preferable where the foolish management at GM and Chrysler could then have scrapped their contracts with the unions and renegotiated more reasonable costs and wages which would have done much more good to make them profitable once again rather than the inexplicable and extra-constitutional course Obama chose to take.
Reorganization would have fixed the problem. What was done was illegal and still doesn't address the prime reason for the problem having occured.
The fact that there are thousands of dollars in legacy costs to fund union pensions etc. built into the price of every single car that rolls off the production line puts our car companies at a competitive disadvantage with many foreign manufacturers that don't have such a financial burden at the get go. (or at least nowhere near our level)
In summary, I will stand by my statements as they are indeed quite factual, sir.
I see nothing good here for us regardless of who gets in. it doesn't matter who is in power it is going to get a hell of a lot worse especially if the right get us back to Bush's policies. This is still joke stage just watch how bad this gets.
They want to privatize social security, rescind health care, and broaden tax cuts for the rich, and oh yeah, try Obama for his crimes. That is just the beginning. Yhep hell is coming to America!
Thank you for the scary Halloween post :)
While I was reading it, I started wondering about something. The conventional wisdom among us pinko liberals is that millions of working class and middle class voters have been tricked into voting against their own interests. That's what I've always thought. But instead, maybe it's a mass epidemic of Stockholm Syndrome (where torture victims fall in love with their torturers). Perhaps millions of working people have fallen in love with the Oligarchs who have robbed them blind.
Remember, at the end of "1984," Winston Smith realized that he loved Big Brother.
Patriot, if the right brings us back to Bush's policies I would agree with you that this would be exceptionally bad. This is particularly so with his domestic agenda as it was largely progressive in many ways. It was Bush and the ensuing huge swing to the progressive left that was the genesis of the Tea Party, after all.
We do need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with legislation that actually addresses the problems with our health care. Same goes with the financial reform act etc.
Don't worry though, as I am sure those travesties will remain in place as there isn't a chance in hell that the GOP will win enough seats to over-ride that guaranteed Obama veto on these things... at least not until January 2013.
The only bright spot I can see is if the Republicunts win one or both houses, they will actually have to work at governing instead of just digging in their heels and saying no to everything Obama and the Dems come up with.
T.Paine keeps polishing that Reich-WingNut turd, but it doesn't look or smell any better!!!!!
Libhom,
I agree the Dems deplorable performance is largely the reason for the beating they will suffer, but the Reich Wing propaganda is having an effect on the low information voters.
SW,
Thank you for your thoughtful and resourced rebuttal to TP's assertions. He's a true believer, albeit well-intentioned.
TP,
I think you’re a bright guy too, and perhaps you'd have better information if you questioned your sources a bit more. We're all quick to believe what supports our preconceptions.
I am pleased that you somewhat agree with our perspective on corporate personhood and campaign finance.
I'm a bit concerned about your bias, however, when I see words like "excessive regulation" and "extremely high cost of labor" in the same paragraph.
As I've posted time and again, since Reagan the wages of most Americans have declined and stagnated, while income has exponentially increased for the economic elite.
Are you certain that GM’s troubles are all the Union workers’ fault, and none due to mismanagement?
Are you suggesting denial of health care benefits due to “pre-existing conditions” or other corporate policy was not a health care issue? Are you sure that was not “death panel” rationing of care?
I'm curious if you have noticed that almost all of your other positions align with the interests of the top one percent income earners. If you are among that group I would understand, but I don't think you are.
I do believe they are actively nurturing your allegiance through disinformation. I'll expand on this in my next comment. I checked up on Dr. David “Death Panel” Janda. Thank you for the link.
Jim,
Yes, as I say, it will not be pretty.
Kulkuri,
The Guardians Of Plutocracy have no interest in governing, or anything else, other than destroying Obama and enacting the agenda of their Big Money masters. No matter that Obama has been very kind to Wall Street and insurance companies.
Tom,
This is a very scary election on so many levels. I can't remember a scarier Halloween.
Yes, for some reason, reverence of wealth, and for the wealthy, is always nurtured by the wealthy.
TP:
I’d bet my next prescription Dr. David “Death Panel” Janda would agree Obama is a Marxist, too. We know his word for “Obamacare” is “Fascism”.
I’m pretty sure I can tell you what Janda is. Apart from being an ultra-right wing, greedy, fear-mongering Republican, he is dishonest. Or would that be redundant? I could add, from the way he sneers “Barack Hussssein Obama”, the possibility he is also a bigot. But let’s set that one aside.
Janda is a liar.
Upon examination we learn how wildly false the man can be.
Let’s just start with the LIE about his “survey” being published in a real medical journal. (O’Reilly parroted the stat and reported the source as New England Journal of Medicine.) What do you bet the source was more of a corporate nature? The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta surveyed a thousand, most likely republican, doctors on how they’d react to “Obamacare”, whatever frightening form it may have had at the time. The "survey" touted the supposed importance of physician recruitment firms "after health reform is passed and implemented".
So take courage, the great and impending perils from losing nearly half of our physicians shall not befall us.
Janda is caught in more lies than I have room for here.
You can check snopes, or answers.com, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Dr_David_Janda_correct
Or better yet, here: http://www.impulsenine.com/?p=1629
I read this after I posted my bitchfest today. Sadly, I agree with everything you say so I am gonna go hide under the covers until tomorrow Morning when I will get up to vote and go back under the covers until Wednesday Morning.
Dubya, I am quite certain that GM and Chrysler are in the situation they are in also because of poor managment; however, a HUGE contributing factor to their ills were absolutely the unions.
As for health care, hell yes are system had serious issues before Obamacare such as denial of pre-existing conditions and out of control costs. My gripe is that Obamacare does not address these problems and puts all of the control in the hand's of the government to decide on courses of action, instead of your doctor. How can anyone think that this is a good thing?
And no, I am solidly middle class and not in the top 1% of wage earners. Further I don't despise those 1% simply because they are wealthy. Some of these people do great philanthropic things with their wealth. Some don't. The bottom line is that it is their money to do with as they please, just as we should have that same right even if we are in the bottom 1%.
As for Dr. Janda, your objectivity is failing, my friend. You assume he is a greedy right wing Republican because he disagrees with Obamacare? You assume that the 1000 respondents are all Republicans? You don't think that Democrat doctors that will be severely impacted by this illegal legislation aren't similarly upset?
You don't address any of the specific issues that Janda presents, sir.
Regardless, if not repealed, I guarantee you we will find out in two more years who is correct. I am quite confident that I will win, if such is the case, sir.
Dusty,
At least you’ll emerge from covers, unlike the Dems.
TP,
Good to see you think GM mismanagement is responsible too. I would point out the unions faced new non-union domestic and foreign cars as competition. We all know where the American worker is headed when forced to compete with low wage, low tariff imports. America’s workers are headed for a third world standard of living. Corporate written trade agreements will continue to put us at such disadvantages.
We don’t have to despise the economic elite to understand our interests do not align. Is it “socialistic” to want them to pay the same tax rates they did under Reagan? I don’t think so. It seems they did quite well back then. Since then, reverence of wealth, and for the wealthy, has elevated the elites to a class of power and ownership of our political system never seen in our lifetimes. It truly has become something resembling a “divine right of Wealth” to rule in America. Who’s really calling the shots? Do you honestly think it is progressives? Maybe if we had universal single payer health care and education, and more employment with pensions and benefits, I’d agree.
Again you repeat the Right’s unsubstantiated fear mongering about “all of the control in the hand's of the government to decide on courses of action, instead of your doctor.” That is just not true. You have no proof or example other than some right wingers’ assertions. You seem oblivious to the health insurance company bean counters, the real death panels, between us and our doctors as well. The health care law really does address the problem of denial of benefits. Honest.
I’m afraid we see a bit of projection in “As for Dr. Janda, your objectivity is failing, my friend.” Yes, I did, in fact, address a specific issue. And I’ve shown you he is a liar. Why should I pay any more attention to him? Have you checked the links? And no, I do not assume he’s a greedy right wing Republican. I know it. It’s obvious from his arrogant tone and dishonesty about “Obamacare” being “fascism”. I watched your video, please return the favor and look at the evidence I linked.
TP wrote: Anderson, indeed there was some regulations scaled back under Bush, but not anywhere near enough.
Dude, there are millions of barrels of oil loose in the Gulf because Bush did not provide enough regulation for his and Cheney's buddies. In fact the people who were suppose to oversee the oil fuckers were getting laid and snorting some fine white while on the taxpayer’s dime.
TP you also wrote: In addition, 47 states have additional corporate taxes added onto the federal tax thus making businesses wanting to locate in the U.S. even less palatable.
Dude I live in the blood red state of South Carolina with my wife working as a tax attorney for the state government and I assure you that is not the case. We have had hundreds of businesses leave South Carolina in the last 15 years for no other reason than labor being less than pennies on the dollar in China compared to NON-UNION workers here in the Palmetto state.
Not only that our tax structure is so geared to giving breaks to corporations that we have no money for upkeep in the infrastructure like water, sewer, roads, and electricity to keep them here. So they also leave at times to go places where they have easier ways to get their products out.
Mention raising taxes on civilians to repair and replace some of the infrastructure and you get the usual ignorant tea bagger rant about waste and mismanagement. That’s all fine but the education level continues to fall for reasons too long to list, bridges and roads fall apart, and your precious and abused business people still leave the country.
Yeah, Unions slit their own throats many times and there is waste and fraud in government making this a far more complicated subject than we can discuss here. But if you were as level headed and educated as you like to portray you would know simple right and left wing propaganda will not cut it in the 21st century.
Beach,
Thank you. There was a time when there was such a thing as a sense of community/civic responsibility in corporations. No more. They want every benefit of public services and infrastructure, but they want US to pay for it.
TP,
Do you realize you and I pay more taxes than many corporations do? Funny thing how taxation without representation used to be a problem with Americans. Now we pay taxes and get next to no representation, while corporations pay no taxes and get all the representation.
Is this the ugly fruit of corporatism disguised as conservatism. Or is this what conservatives really want?
Unfortunately the results were close to your worst-case scenario, losing the House by a big margin. I agree, the country doesn't seem to care about facts or truth; they believe what they are told. Very discouraging.
Maui,
Now we have a new worst case scenario. Obama caves to the House.
It will be interesting to see how he handles this.
Fear not, Dubya, Obama has yet to compromise on any major piece of legislation in his life. I think it is quite unlikely he will start now, sir.
TP,
"Yet to compromise"? Are you sure about that? Ever hear of the "public option"? Do you have any idea that the 300 billion dollar tax breaks in the stimulus is just such a compromise?
"Romneycare" and huge tax breaks were not in the Dems' original proposals, but that's what we got.
Obama lost traction because he was hobbled first by compromising with the Blue Dogs. Then came concessions for Republicans.
You need to learn that FOX(R) is the voice of the Republican Party and has never, ever, been "fair and balanced".
Do you really think the health care legislation and stimulus were exactly as Obama originally intended? Really? I mean, really?
Your loyalty to right wing misinformation is admirable Mr. Paine. No doubt you could endure months of waterboarding defending the anti union propaganda the right foments.
The fact is it takes two parties to agree on a contract. Contracts contain provisions for wages and work rules. If GM and Chrysler's management were too weak or ignorant to out negotiate union negotiators then any blame for a bad deal lays 100% on them.
I never went into a negotiation naively thinking management was there to help me. And if they thought I was there to help them damn right I used it to get a better deal for my members.
If management fails to watch expenses, update and improve production methods, manage and discipline as needs warrent, that's managements fault.
The problem with the stimulus is it did more to bail out management.
Ayatollah, you are absolutely correct regarding management. I have no argument with you on anything you said. (other than your first paragraph.) :)
Every time Democrats compromised, Republicans moved what they wanted further to the right. In some cases, they filibustered their own proposals.
Dave, off topic but sort of on, the online petition I promised to replace Harry Reid with a Majority Leader with enough courage to stand up to Republicans is now up.
TomCat,
That has been the pattern for so long now we have a Democratic right wing party and the Guardians Of Plutocracy extreme right party.
Liberalism is dead in the federal government. A handful of liberal senators are not capable of changing that course. I wish I could think of a senator who could both stand on principle and lead. Not supporting the Patriot Act would probably "disqualify" them from leadership.
Thanks for the petition
“Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them.” - Will Rogers
"Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda." Paul Craig Roberts, former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
"The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media. Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives—not by journalists—whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers. Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home." Paul Craig Roberts, former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
Anonymous, first Roberts was an ASSISTANT Secretary of the Treasury.
Second, while there is some small truth to what he says, there are also some underlying tones of unwarranted paranoia and desperation in his quotations. I don't know that I would put much stock in what he says accordingly.
T. Paine, you make a good point.
If the highest wages in the USA were $35 / week then we could enjoy the prosperity that the Chinese enjoy.
Their wages are now going up and they are starting to see some of the problems we've encountered. As they continue to rise, corporations will look for cheaper labor elsewhere.
Americans just expect too much. We're spoiled. If we lived in cardboard shacks and drank polluted water. If we didn't mind our children being sickly and born deformed, we could better compete with third world nations.
T. Pain, I bet it's your fault that the USA is in trouble.
Do you make more than $35 / week?
If you do, you're obviously a traitor to America by your own standards.
If you'd be willing to post (even privately), proof that your gross annual income is less than $35 / week I'll concede publically that you're walking the walk.
But until you're ready to match the Chinese in your own wages, don't go around saying Americans earn too much money.
Cut your income to $35 / week and then preach to us.
Anon,
PCR sees things a bit too clearly for some. Not since Pravda has there been such a vast political propaganda machine posing as a news organizations.
During the war fever days MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for being politically incorrect. To the Right, we only have "state run media" when a Dem is in the White House.
TP,
You understand that you are responding to facts with opinion, right?
"Concentration of print and broadcast media owned by 5 giant companies " Fact.
"Corporations are run by corporate executives—not by journalists—whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers." Fact, not opinion.
If you are looking for "paranoia and desperation" look to the millions of ill-informed Americans who believe Obama is a Marxist racist Muslim. There's your proof of Roberts' contention. If we removed those ignorant, paranoid and hateful voters from the recent election, the results would have been significantly differrent.
FOX(R) has done its job. Mission accomplished.
Wease,
I'm afraid TP doesn't believe our middle class should have a decent standard of living anymore. It's not like they are as deserving and productive members of society as Beck, Limbaugh, and Palin. No, they are the victims and the union workers are the villians taking away their "freedom" by wanting to impose Reagan era "socialistic" taxes.
There is no limit to greed, and Big Money knows exactly how to frame the "debate' and control the corporate media message. Now they tell us Obama had better move to the Right and capitualte to the new uncompromising Republican masters.
Weaseldog, if progressives, George Soros, and the Federal Reserve keep on the current path they are, then $35/week pay may seem exorbitant for Americans.
The Fed's monetizing another $600 billion in national debt will drop the value of the dollar significantly, but Soros will make out like a bandit by leveraging this.
I understand people (even union members) wanting to get as much money as possible for their labor. That is human nature and self interest. That in and of itself in a free market economy is fine.
Where the problem occurs is when management agrees to ridiculous bargaining negotiations with unions that ultimately puts the costs of their goods/services into an uncompetitive status as compared to foreign companies that don't have as high of labor costs.
The unions typically tie their wages to a certain percentage above minimum wage and then lobby for increases in minimum wages. The big corporations can absorb that cost more readily, but the small mom and pop businesses can't.
You thereby destroy the very middle class you claim to want to help.
All of these policies to "help" the middle class might do so in the short term, but as you can now see, they are devastating in the long term to our economy and our unemployment rate. Such progressive policies are now reaping what they have sown.
As for the silliness regarding the "mainstream" media, I recall objective and credible polls showing somewhere around 93% of "journalists" voted for Clinton. That number increased with Obama.
I don't give a damn who owns the company, when the reporters putting forth the stories have their subtle, or sometimes overt biases in every article or broadcast.
Half the time, what the MSM even chooses to report upon or not report upon is clearly indicative of a progressive bias. THOSE are the real facts, gentleman.
Weaseldog, if progressives, George Soros, and the Federal Reserve keep on the current path they are, then $35/week pay may seem exorbitant for Americans.
The Fed's monetizing another $600 billion in national debt will drop the value of the dollar significantly, but Soros will make out like a bandit by leveraging this.
I understand people (even union members) wanting to get as much money as possible for their labor. That is human nature and self interest. That in and of itself in a free market economy is fine.
Where the problem occurs is when management agrees to ridiculous bargaining negotiations with unions that ultimately puts the costs of their goods/services into an uncompetitive status as compared to foreign companies that don't have as high of labor costs.
The unions typically tie their wages to a certain percentage above minimum wage and then lobby for increases in minimum wages. The big corporations can absorb that cost more readily, but the small mom and pop businesses can't.
You thereby destroy the very middle class you claim to want to help.
All of these policies to "help" the middle class might do so in the short term, but as you can now see, they are devastating in the long term to our economy and our unemployment rate. Such progressive policies are now reaping what they have sown.
As for the silliness regarding the "mainstream" media, I recall objective and credible polls showing somewhere around 93% of "journalists" voted for Clinton. That number increased with Obama.
I don't give a damn who owns the company, when the reporters putting forth the stories have their subtle, or sometimes overt biases in every article or broadcast.
Half the time, what the MSM even chooses to report upon or not report upon is clearly indicative of a progressive bias. THOSE are the real facts, gentleman.
TP,
There you go again, calling your opinions facts. Nothing you presented was sourced. Next time try this model, "According to (Fill in the blank) the facts are the following..." See? That's not too difficult.
Your analysis neglected to cover the reasons for those "uncompetative" wages. This was not an issue before the same management folks you mention pushed for NAFTA and other so-called "free trade" agreements that were intended to put American workers at such a disadvantage.
While it may be fine and dandy you "don't give a damn who owns the (media)company", the journalists do. They are losing their jobs so fast we no longer really have a free press. We have corporate media interested in two things, and their bias is clear. One is preserving the status quo, and two is maximizing profit. Neither are progressive goals. Why do you think we never see corporate media calling for campaign finance reform? Why don't we hear them denouncing "Citizens United v. FEC", and renouncing corporate personhood? Why do they only endorse Republicans and Democrats and not Ralph Nader? For one thing it would be progressive of them to do so. For another it conflicts with their above mentioned profits from the status quo. There's your bias. Get it?
I don't know where you pull the journalist voting stat, but let's say it is correct. The next question would be obvious. Why is it that journalists are generally liberal?
Here's why. They are educated, literate and more informed on the issues than most Americans. Get it?
Now I admit these are my opinions, but they are grounded in verifiable, factual, and historical reality.
All your "facts" come from the corporate media's Right Wing echo chamber. No bias there, right?
Dubya, I will gladly admit to the fact that NAFTA absolutely played a huge part in American wages being uncompetitive, particularly in auto manufacturing, but as I had previously mentioned, the fact that the legacy costs for union pensions, health care etc, are thousands of dollars for every car rolling off the assembly line compared to our foreign companies, that puts us in a hole right from the start.
As for journalists losing their jobs right and left, perhaps that is because they all put too much opinion into their reporting. People understand the difference between an op/ed and unbiased reporting.
When what is supposed to be straight new reporting is biased, your damned right people wont' buy it and supply and demand will dictate that the need for such journalists wanes accordingly.
As for your contention that journalists are educated and literate, well that hardly should trump common sense. Even us unwashed uneducated masses don't like being told what we have to think, Dubya.
Journalism is supposed to be an objective reporting of facts. Not a propagandist editorial.
I don't recall the particular article I read a few years back, but some businessman asked a college journalism class why these kids chose this course as their major. One of the predominant answers he received was because they wanted to change the world for the better.
I would submit to you that is NOT what journalism is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a fair and objective reporting of people, events, and ideas. (Not changing the world through guiding a damned story, sir)
Of course, that is just my opinion...
As for stats, here is a little dated one to help corroborate my "assertion".
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
Cheers!
Give me an effin break Paine, Media Research Cntr is nothing more than a rightwing talking points machine. From their 'about' page:
Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. The Heritage Foundation is the same thing...will you be quotng from them as well?
I assume you want me to provide objective and unbiased data, like maybe from Moveon.org or Media Matters, perhaps?
Mr Paine, I would like to know where you got this info:
Next, America does have the 2nd highest tax rate in the world, and Japan announced that it was going to cut it corporate taxes, thus giving us the honor of being number one. Because I believe that isn't anywhere near true. Also are you speaking to corporate or individual tax rates?
As for sourcing...I like Jurist which is put out by the U of Pittsburgh Law School, Pew research site, OpenSecrets, ProPublica, Nieman Journalism Lab which is put out by Harvard, and others if you would like me to list them. Oh, and FactCheck.org skewers both sides of the aisle as well.
Thank you T. Paine.
I thought I understood you.
you believe that the middle class should be living in cardboard shacks, and crapping outside in communal outhouses, while making at most $35 / week.
Because that's business wants to pay and that's what Americans need to be reduced to, to compete with the third world.
you want to destroy the middle class to be competitive, but you think George Soros is destroying it wrong.
It's rare that right winger like yourself is so clear. Normally when I ask for clarification, right wingers get all flip floppy. But not you. You know where you stand on the issues and you're clear in communicating your beliefs.
Dusty, please see the link I provided below to the non-partisan Taxfoundation.org:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23034.html
Weaseldog, you are funny, sir. For the record, I am a member right smack dab in the middle of that middle class. I guarantee you that I do not want it and my livelihood destroyed. Not by our federal government, not by my state government, and certainly not by the likes of a currency manipulating George Soros type.
Why do you hate unions which are responsible for our middle class if you're a member of it Mr. Paine?
Your hatred is deluded.
And I've been on union negotiating committees. I've advised others while an officer. Never once did I or did I hear anyone say our wage demands were based on how much minimum wage was.
Your sources are suspect as is your judgement Thomas.
No bias? Laughing my brown ass off! The hell they aren't! Here is some info on their head guy:
Scott A. Hodge is President of the Tax Foundation.
Prior to this, he was director of tax and budget policy at Citizens for a Sound Economy, and a research analyst for the Heritage Foundation. Hodge helped found the Heartland Institute in 1984 and was one of its first employees.
Heritage Foundation...yeah...I rest my case on that source too.
And Mr Paine, you have outed yourself with this little comment:
Not by our federal government, not by my state government, and certainly not by the likes of a currency manipulating George Soros type. A graduate of Nutter U eh? I figured as much. You do know that one of Palin's..cough..advisors hit George S up for money right?
The Chinese manipulate their currency far more than Mr Soros can or does.
Ayatollah, I think there was a time when unions were critically necessary to counter greedy corporate interests, and to a minimal extent, could still serve that purpose today, if they were to return to their root causes.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that most large unions today are little more than progressive PAC's that serve those interests far better than they do that of their union members, sir.
I would submit to you that in the long run, large unions typically have negotiated contracts that these foolish corporatists cannot afford and ultimately create the climate for offshoring the very jobs these unions are purportedly there to protect, sir.
As for union contracts being tied to a certain multiplier above minimum wage, my recently deceased Uncle was a union negotiator and told me this awhile back.
While I can't disagree that many unions have lost their way, I do ask who or what other than unions can provide a voice to fight the greed of corporations today Mr. Paine?
The US Chamber of Commerce spent over 70 million this election.
Businesses of all kinds have multi millions to spend on lobbyists and attack ads to further their cause.
Personally I think many politicians that proclaim to be pro union are for the most part just paying lip service. The reality is in five to ten years other than public service and hotel jobs, unions will be all but gone.
I don't disagree with you Ayatollah. I think the best solution, which are corrupt politicians will never pass, is to present legislation where unions, corporation, lobbies, and special interest groups are banned from political donations.
Only private citizens should be allowed to donate to a candidate or cause as they see fit. In such a way, we get rid of all the extraneous bull crap and put the power back in the hands of We The People again.
Like I said, I am not holding my breath on this one.
Get the corporations, billionaires and lobby money out of campaigns? Please, it's been tried since the early 1900's. Look up Buckley v. Valeo, which is when SCOTUS first ruled corporations had the same rights as individuals and considered money to be equal to 'free speech'. Then there was the recent ruling Citizens United v FEC which really sealed it for the Corporatocracy gents. Dream on....
Dusty, I understand that, but in my pollyanish world it would be nice if we could do what the Tea Party started by voting out the establishment asses and replacing them with someone that might actually do what the people want.
I don't know, but my idiot senator lost in our primary for precisely that reason. I am hoping the senator elect will keep him promises. If we all stand up and vote out the incumbents that don't want to listen to us, sooner or later we will get the damned government we deserve finally... maybe...
TP,
Despite your embrace of most of the Right's dogma, I credit and admire you for sharing our vision of democracy's peril due to campaign finance and corporate personhood. For this I am happy to pour you a double Wild Turkey.
If that vision was shared by the tea party I’d agree they would be anti-establishment. Outrage over fiscal irresponsibility is fine, but allowing Republican front groups and Jim Demint to speak at their rallies only makes them tools of the economic elite.
I’d be happy to pour you another if it would help you see your bias against journalism. Sorry, ill-informed people, no matter how much "common sense" they may have, cannot vote for their best interests if all they know is from FOX (R) and Limbaugh. FOX (R) is NOT journalism; it is a Republican Party support operation. Limbaugh is also not a journalist. I like to avoid writing the real words I feel best describe him in the interests of having a family friendly blog. I will simply say he is a liar.
If a journalist wants to make the world a better place, it is through disclosure of truth, not repetition of political talking points. Unfortunately the truth is of little value to corporate media.
FOX (R) and Right Wing talk radio, not journalists, explain why so many Americans think Obama is a Muslim socialist.
What we have is closer to this:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press …… I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with …… and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job ……the business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread …… what folly is this toasting an independent press?” - John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, in a toast before the New York Press Club in 1953
There's a reason why the Right's most important propaganda tool is to falsely equate journalism with liberalism. They cannot win in the arena of public opinion without working the refs. The public's interests are not aligned with corporate interests or with the greed of the super rich. Yes it is greed. There is simply no other word for those who have more money than they can spend, whining about being "punished" by paying Reagan era taxes when they already have more representation in Congress than the rest of us combined.
That, my friend, is not socialism.
Sorry, ill-informed people, no matter how much "common sense" they may have, cannot vote for their best interests if all they know is from FOX (R) and Limbaugh. FOX (R) is NOT journalism; it is a Republican Party support operation. No way any voter with two brain cells to rub together buys into their outright lies that Faux never-ever corrects.
T. Painbe said, "Weaseldog, you are funny, sir. For the record, I am a member right smack dab in the middle of that middle class. I guarantee you that I do not want it and my livelihood destroyed"
Now you're contradicting yourself. You're flip flopping.
You want our middle class wages to be competitive with wages paid in third world countries.
You were very clear in pointing out that we earn way too much money to be competitive with third world countries. This you pointed out was what was destroying America.
You've been very clear until this last flip flop.
You want the Middle Class to earn dirt wages, but not be destroyed. By low wages.
That makes no sense.
How can we have our wages dropped to compete with the third world without having our wages dropped?
Please be clearer, because your arguments are not making sense.
Dusty, anyone that takes just one side of any argument prior to forming their opinion is setting themselves up for a huge fall.
Yes, I watch Fox. I also watch, although typically with great indigestion, MSNBC. I read the NY Times rag as well as the Weekly Standard. I travel amongst many different blogs of varied opinion and most of the time my TV is set on C-Span.
I would submit to you that if your only sources of information are from the left, YOU are doing yourself a disservice. I am not always successful in doing so, but I honestly try not to discount a good idea simply because I don't like the source of it. Would that we all be able to do this!
Weaseldog, I am not being contradictory. I simply am not accepting your silly one-way-or-the-other assertion.
Mr Paine, evidently you ignored one of my comments above,or your reading comprehension really sucks. Take this part of your last comment:I would submit to you that if your only sources of information are from the left, YOU are doing yourself a disservice. I am not always successful in doing so, but I honestly try not to discount a good idea simply because I don't like the source of it. Would that we all be able to do this! I told you various sources I use. Here is my quote from a comment above your Faux Noise watching self: As for sourcing...I like Jurist which is put out by the U of Pittsburgh Law School, Pew research site, OpenSecrets, ProPublica, Nieman Journalism Lab which is put out by Harvard, and others if you would like me to list them. Oh, and FactCheck.org skewers both sides of the aisle as well. Those sites provide a much better view of the truth, along with providing evidence of why they see issues a certain way.
When in the blue hell does Faux submit evidence on any of the shit they spew, other than more members of Nutter U.?
Like you, Faux Noise likes to think their opinions are facts.I really loved this part of your last comment: Dusty, anyone that takes just one side of any argument prior to forming their opinion is setting themselves up for a huge fall. Bullshit buddy, that is your conjecture and nothing more. I have my opinions formed on most issues because I stay informed by a plethora of sites and organizations, you know...like the ones I wrote about higher up this thread that you must of ignored, so I restated them for you in this comment.
Do not talk down to me sir, it makes you look like a fool and a self-absorbed graduate of Nutter U who thinks i am below their level in some form or fashion.
T. Paine, why the hell do you not read my comments and then have the nads to tell me: Dusty, anyone that takes just one side of any argument prior to forming their opinion is setting themselves up for a huge fall. Here is my comment, word for word. let me put it in bold so you actually see and read it this time:As for sourcing...I like Jurist which is put out by the U of Pittsburgh Law School, Pew research site, OpenSecrets, ProPublica, Nieman Journalism Lab which is put out by Harvard, and others if you would like me to list them. Oh, and FactCheck.org skewers both sides of the aisle as well.
Dusty, I had indeed forgotten your "sources" listed. My sincere apologies accordingly. Indeed some of them strike me as valid sources. (I peruse a lot of websites and blogs, so I don't recall all of the particulars I have read always.)
I would submit that it is you; however, that is coming across as quite condescending and self righteous though. I don't know anything about you really yet, so other than a few comments in a blog thread, I really don't have sufficient information yet to decide if you are someone open to ideas and debate or are simply a shrill harpy bent of spewing one side of an argument.
I try to give most people the benefit of the doubt, like our good host Dubya here. Now politically we don't always see eye to eye, but he is reasonable enough to come together on some common ground issues. For that, I am glad that he is able to look past my PhD from Nutter U.
Dang Dave! You are really getting mileage out of this posting! 60 comments and counting! :)
Personally, I have toned down my words here. If they are too strong for you, nothing I can do about that.
But saying I quite possibly am a shrill harpy is not only misogynistic but condescending as well. Pot calling the kettle black.
The eight trillion dollars of the deficit came from eight years of Bush, who was handed a clean slate with no deficit...wasn't that Mr Clinton?
T. Paine said, "Weaseldog, I am not being contradictory. I simply am not accepting your silly one-way-or-the-other assertion."
Well help me understand you better.
Your argument seemed clear.
Your argument was that unions have destroyed America by causing us to earn high wages that are not competitive with the third world. Because of this, factories are moving to the third world, internet shops are moving to the third world, engineering, finance and the rest are moving to the third world. And it's the fault of the unions, driving the American wage too high.
And if we look at China, a nation trying to get their wages higher to drive their economy... They seem to be making the same mistake and nations with cheaper labor forces are now out competing them.
So be clear. Do Americans make way too much money? Say ten times too much? Yes or no?
T. Paine said, "I would submit that it is you; however, that is coming across as quite condescending and self righteous though."
Sometimes it's difficult to get through to people who primarily get their news through the entertainment media. The sound bites and endless editorializing on FOX and MSNBC only has the flavor of news. If you're only getting the soundbites they present, you're just getting the prepared cuts that they want you to have. You have to read and research to get the rest of the story.
Having a discussion about actual facts with you, is a bit like arguing with the television. you can mention sources, use rational arguments, disprove their positions and the talking heads on the TV keep on blathering.
Dusty, I apologize for implying you were a "shrill harpy". That was uncalled for, ma'am, and I shouldn't have said so.
Weaseldog, the irony in your statement is astounding. I do believe I will just go talk to one of the walls in my home. I suspect the outcome will be about the same...
Paine, my issue w/your comments is no sourcing at all..but you present them as facts. If you truly want a good discussion, I see no problem with asking for sourcing on any particular comment as it shows all of us where you, or us, get our info or in some cases mis-information.
Since you admit to watching the Faux Noise Machine, I have to say I have little faith in anything you say here. But thanks for the apology anyway.
T. Paine, I would like to thank you for denying that you ever made this argument...
"and the extremely high cost of labor thanks to Democratic-supporting unions that are ultimately the cause for large companies to have to look to foreign sources of labor and production in order to remain in business and be competitive, sir."
Obviously you never implied that we've lost competitiveness because workers in the third world undercut our labor costs.
"Weaseldog, the irony in your statement is astounding. I do believe I will just go talk to one of the walls in my home. I suspect the outcome will be about the same..."
Yes, change the subject. It's better than flip flopping and denying you you wrote things when they are in print, on the same page you're denying them from.
Weaseldog, you are trying to be too clever with your illogical trap.
Are you saying that only those people that work for unions are capable of being middle class?
Further, when foolish corporate management agrees to exorbitant union concessions that put the source of their profit (income) in jeopardy for their business, and thereby the union workers themselves in the long term, does that not seem that this process (of which both corporation and union are at fault) only serves to further decimate the middle class with the disapperance of their once middle-class sustaining jobs.
I don't know your background, but I have worked my whole life thus far in jobs that have placed me solidly in the middle class. I did not have "help" from a union ever in getting to this point.
On the contrary, I have seen union shop services having to be used which tended to be much more expensive in labor instead of using mom and pop suppliers and services that typically would be more attentive to detail, more responsive to requests, and ABSOLUTELY cost less than their union counterparts.
That was the whole reason why I originally said that I don't accept the premise of your assertion.
Please tell me that you don't think that unions are the singularly responsible for the survival of the middle class, sir.
T. Paine said... "Weaseldog, you are trying to be too clever with your illogical trap.
Are you saying that only those people that work for unions are capable of being middle class?"
Actually you don't really see how simple your argument is. I'm not really being clever.
Your exact argument is that union employees make too much money.
I'm not a union employee. But there are times when I've earned much, much more than a union employee.
I have also done extensive work with the Chinese. I know how much they earn, doing exactly the same job I do.
And let me be clear, there are Chinese doing all the jobs Americans do, but make a tenth of what the American makes.
So let's look at your last argument, about union workers being paid too much and earning less than you. And consider that there is a Chinese person who is qualified to do your job and makes one tenth what you make.
The conclusion is clear, you make too damn much money and you aren't worth the money you make. Your business could easily move to China and replace you with a qualified person for much less money.
In fact all Americans make too damn much money when compared to the Chinese.
And the Chinese now make too damn much money compared to workers in other countries.
If a business wants to remain competitive, it drops wages to under cut it's competitors. Americans need to earn less than the Chinese to turn this around.
Right now unions are the scapegoats. But union workers earn less than you. When the unions are taken out, you're next on the food chain.
But in all I appreciate you candor, in announcing that people who earn less than you, make too damn much money.
Obviously, you're grossly overpaid. A waste of money, by your own arguments. Not my arguments, your arguments.
I would argue that the Chinese have been allowed to engage in unfair trade and labor practices for far too long.
You instead blame America.
T. Paine said... "On the contrary, I have seen union shop services having to be used which tended to be much more expensive in labor instead of using mom and pop suppliers and services that typically would be more attentive to detail, more responsive to requests, and ABSOLUTELY cost less than their union counterparts."
That is a valid argument.
But get rid of them, and wages are still ten times more than what a qualified Chinese mom and pop service pays and charges.
You've still got a huge problem of all Americans (even you), earning too damn much money to compete.
I wonder if the CEO's who have gone from making 50 times the money of their employess to 500 times make "too damn much money". Well, of course not. They are "punished" too severely and need tax cuts.
We've been indoctrinated to worship wealth and the wealthy. The "Free Market" is our false god. "In Mammon We Trust" is the de-facto national motto.
With that god and motto we doom our nation to unending right wing corporatocracy.
Here's a good article on the points I've made.
He shows how T. Paine and Obama are in complete agreement that in order to compete in the New World Order, American wages and lifestyles must be reduced to third world levels.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/barack-obama-we-must-embrace-globalism-and-the-emerging-one-world-economy
Wease,
We're supposed to think Obama's a Marxist Muslim Socialist, not a corporatist globalist. That's what both parties want. If both conservatives and liberals could only understand the D's as well as the R's are bringing on the global new world order. Although there's nothing really new about it. As we already know, it is feudalist rule by the economic elite through "divine right of wealth".
"In Mammon We Trust."
In regards to Obama being some kind of Progressive Marxist and not a Globalist Capitalistic Slave Owner Overlord that the Tea Party would prefer as President...
Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
With apologies to Groucho Marx....
Post a Comment