Tea time again already? Bless their pointed little heads; they had Republicans create a phony crisis so convincingly that Standard and Poor's has downgraded the US credit rating. Has the US defaulted on payments to earn that? No, but thanks to Poor Standard’s purely political opinion, the market has been whipsawing back and forth.
Just imagine if the Tea Cult had its way and the US actually defaulted. The “Me first, country second” crowd would be in ecstasy. They’re going to have to settle with their "the tea party downgrade” for now.
The good news is polls are showing the Tea Cult is now being downgraded itself, by the American people. Too late, unfortunately, for their damage has been done. But maybe they’ve done their worst, since more people are beginning to understand who and what they work for. We know they have nothing in common, apart from their costumes and Gadsden Flags, with the original colonial tea party. The real patriots protested against corporate tax CUTS for the British East India Company.
The truth:
Brandishing a historic moniker that symbolized rebellion against the then monarchial power, the Congressional Tea Partiers are anything but rebels against power – whether against the wars of empire, corporate welfare, sovereignty shedding NAFTA and WTO, corporate crime, the flouted war powers of Congress, or a runaway Wall Street. – Ralph Nader
Despite their moderate disappointment in not causing a complete default, the Tea Cult is still wallowing in their usual hysteria. The Tea Party Express Bozo Bus toured Wisconsin in an effort to defend the Republican union busting war on the middle class. Midway through the Fond du Lac event, Florida talk show host Andrea Shea King took the stage.
SHEA KING: This week—I wrote it down—they are blaming the credit downgrade on the tea party movement.
CROWD: Yeah! (Cheers, clapping)
SHEA KING: They are calling it "the tea party downgrade." They are objectivizing [sic] us.
Darn those evil liberals and their “objectivizing” the Tea Cult and their pride in the work they’ve done. How evil are those “objectivizing” liberals? Why, just as evil as those “objectivizing” Nazis, of course.
Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips also had a message for Wisconsin’s “real Americans”. He educated them about what pro-union, working Americans really are.
A few days ago, Governor Walker showed up to open the state fair. This was not a political event. It is one of those ceremonial events that a governor is obligated to do. His remarks were not political and in fact, consisted mostly of saying, "I declare the state fair to be open." The Wisconsin Red shirts, the left's modern version of Brown shirts, were there to shout Walker down and generally ruin the fair for as many people as they could.
Got that? Pro-union American workers are the modern version of Nazis. “Union thugs” and "goons" fail to adequately describe them anymore, I guess.
Meanwhile, over at another tea cult fringe site, patriot action network, the champions of corporatism, plutocracy and greed issue a dire warning and call to action:
SEIU (OBAMA'S BROWN SHIRTS) HAVE SCHEDULED NATIONWIDE PROTESTS.... TEACHERS UNIONS PRESSURE MEMBERS TO SHOW "SOLIDARITY"
This is a CALL to ACTION for the TEA PARTY
Time to get into to gear and organize your troops at the local level in the areas listed below. Contact your tea party and anyone else who will support our side. It's time to show these big labor goons and the country we can organize without big Union and DNC money!
What kind of action are they calling for? They want to infiltrate the pro-union demonstration to agitate, disrupt and distract from their message. We’ve heard the outrage from Republicans that some liberal dared consider going to a Tea Cult rally under similar pretenses, although I have not seen evidence of this actually happening. But their action goes much further, of course.
We remember Mark Williams, infamous author of a “letter” supposedly from "the Colored People" to President Lincoln praising slavery:
What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!
We have him to thank for educating us about how racist the NAACP really is. He should know, eh? He’s also the rabid crusader against First Amendment rights of Muslims to have a community center in New York, and he accused President Obama of being an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug". Now there’s a Me-first-country-second “real American”, no doubt.
He writes of his plan:
(1) I signed up as an organizer (2) with any luck they will contact me and I will have an “in” (3) in or not I will be there and am asking as many other people as can get there to come with, all of us in SEIU shirts (those who don’t have them we can possibly buy some from vendors likely to be there) (4) we are going to target the many TV cameras and reporters looking for comments from the members there (5) we will approach the cameras to make good pictures… signs under our shirts that say things like “screw the taxpayer!” and “you OWE me!” to be pulled out for the camera (timing is important because the signs will be taken away from us) (6) we will echo those slogans in angry sounding tones to the cameras and the reporters. (7) if I do get the ‘in’ I am going to do my darnedest to get podium access and take the mic to do that rant from there…with any luck and if I can manage the moments to build up to it, I can probably get a cheer out of the crowd for something extreme.
WARNING: When around these union events do NOT instigate ANY physical confrontation, walk away from anyone who tries to start one with you. These people WILL have a mob mentality and ARE dangerous.
Since I have radio shows to host in Fresno tomorrow (KMJ FM and KMJ AM) I am going to try to gin up some support from down there and salt the crowd here with more people.
Several Tea Party chapters around the country are planning to join with me, if you are a member of one in your area please contact them for details. If they are not participating get them to!
Chances are that because I am publishing this they’ll catch wind, but it is worth the chance if you take it upon yourself to act…there’s only one of me but there are millions of you and I know that you CAN do this!
Our goal is to make the gathering look as greedy and goonish as we know that it is, ding their credibility with the media and exploit the lazy reporters who just want dramatic shots and outrageous quotes for headlines. Even if it becomes known that we are plants the quotes and pictures will linger as defacto truth.
That’s really the way it works folks, time to use this weapon against the enemy.
There you have it. Pro-democracy, working class Americans like teachers, firemen, cops, etc. are the “enemy”. The enemy! Now we have admitted proof the radical Right is truly an enemy of democracy and working class Americans. They demand stripping workers of their rights to collective bargaining for wages and work conditions, in addition to denying Muslims First Amendment rights.
How “real American” can you get?
Let’s ask Tea Queen Michelle Bachmann.
Mother Jones reports on Bachmann’s “education activist” film Guinea Pig Kids II that warns of the impending “Arbeit Macht Frei” concentration camps if we don’t listen to her ideas on "Minnesota's new centrally-planned education, workforce & economic system and how citizens are trying to reverse it."
Viewed nine years later, with Bachmann the toast of the tea party and atop the polls in Iowa, the video is a testament to how far she's come—and how little she's changed. The movie, intended as an informational device as well as a fundraising tool for the MREC, depicted the duo's multimedia-friendly presentation at a suburban Minneapolis church. It was a presentation they gave frequently over a three-year period, the product of, by their count, 5,000 combined hours of research. Both Bachmann and Chapman warned that unnamed bureaucrats were covertly stripping the nation of its moral foundation and leading it down the path to totalitarianism—even, Chapman suggested, to Auschwitz.
Bachmann, the star of the show (she gets first billing in the opening credits), wholeheartedly endorsed Chapman's dire warnings in her half of the film. "As I was listening to Mike, I wondered—perhaps you had this same thought—I was wondering: Is this something that's coming?" she said. "Or is this something that's already here?"
She had bad news: "It's already here, and it's something that we have to deal with."
Mein Gott! The liberal Nazis have taken over!! And during the Bush years at that!!
The horror.
Some have attributed Winston Churchill as saying, “The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists”. Some have also attributed this to Sinclair Lewis, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
No matter who first said the words, they certainly fit somebody to a “tea”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
Oh well. The Tea Party lost the debt ceiling battle and their influence is diminishing. Fun while it lasted.
Add this to John's now common remark that the Republican field is a sad group of individuals, and we on the right should just resign. Congratulations Obama, we don't even need an election to know that you're the winner. Good luck with your last four years. /sarcasm
Heathen,
I think Obama could actually lose. You never know for sure. It would be tragic. However, I am sure you will agree that if Obama wins he needs another democratic House and hopefully if he gets it, he will do what’s right and not attempt to compromise. Compromise is not a game America plays anymore. The Tea Party, which seems to control America’s direction in their sick oligarchy has ruled against it. I know, you think this is democracy at its best. Checks and balances, negotiation. Do as I say or I America gets it!
The Tea Party did downgrade the U.S. credit rating, but they made no secret of their intentions and the American people voted them in anyway. Whether Standard and Poor did what they did for political reasons or analytical reasons, when a nation willfully chooses to take things to the brink of default, they should be downgraded.
We had already purchased those goods and services. The only question was whether we were going to pay for them or not. Both Republicans and democrats purchased them. I can show you charts showing it is all Bush’s fault. I have them saved somewhere on my computer. You can counter with your own charts, showing just the opposite. It is all complete BS.
What goes into the budget is one question. Whether we pay for services already purchased is another.
We had the budget battle twice, once over the budget, which was legitimate, and once over something else entirely (entitlements, which 60 or so of us targeted).
Heaven help us if the Tea Party ever decides to create a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting abortion. They can wait until we may need to raise the debt ceiling and then force us to accept the amendment or they will cause the nation to default on its debt, or another way to express it, is they will attack American’s economy.
What will their demands be next time, Heathen?
At some point, you would think they would worry about the good of the nation. We had a deficit emergency, as we always do, and we could have worked on balancing the budget, meaning revenue and spending cuts, instead of manufacturing a debt crisis from thin air as a means of coercing philosophical adversaries into meeting our demands.
You do not risk your country to promote your political agenda, or at least you should not.
The budget is always far more than it was before and always seems unspeakably large. We keep talking about debt to GDP as if it is the only metric out there and now that we finally have a democrat in the White House, the ever-climbing debt is arbitrarily a crisis. A debt crisis can only be defined as the inability to pay ones debt. We were not even close. We could have balanced the budget and slowly paid down the debt. We were nowhere near a crisis, that is, until the Tea Party invented one. The crisis was not a debt crisis, though. It was an economic crisis the tea party threatened. The problem is that the threat is the thing when the innocent victim is the trust others place in you. The Tea Party shot the hostage and then demanded compliance, and Obama PARTIALLY did comply, lest the dead hostage be shot.
Oh Dubya. What are we to do with you? You need to go read Myste’s excellent final response to your previous article. While he was addressing his comments specifically to JTF, I think we all would be better off being mindful of group associations, broad generalizations, and the assumption that what one member of a group says does not necessarily reflect the thoughts of all members of that group. But then, what do I know? After all, my pointy little head gets in the way of my main-stream American thinking.
By the way, I hate to disappoint you, but despite the statist media’s best efforts the G.O.P. candidates that seem to be doing the best thus far, including in the Iowa straw poll over the weekend, were those more closely affiliated with the Tea Party and their ideals on the whole. Your referencing Ralph Nader notwithstanding, I think the Tea Party will continue to have great influence in the coming election. I suspect Ralph Nader is ticked because he has become even more irrelevant than Al Gore. Hell, until you printed that quotation, I had just assumed that Nader had passed on already.
All of that said, I do agree with one of your main points regarding the over-the-top and certainly uncalled for comparisons of the union protesters to “Brown shirts”. Certainly not in all cases, but often times the more extreme elements of some unions like the SEIU can be adequately and more accurately be described with the old traditional and meaningful terms of “union thugs” and "goons". Hell, the beatings I saw videos of SEIU members administering to those that had the temerity to go against them were all wearing purple shirts anyways.
As for Mark Williams’ plan to infiltrate their protests, that is just plain stupid. It ruins credibility, is dishonest, and is dirty politics. Not only that, but often times these folks of whom they want to infiltrate their groups with plants will at times say and do things that are just as extreme as what the plants would do. By even saying that you intend to put plants in their demonstrations only gives them plausible deniability of one of their own making outrageous statements by blaming it on those plants.
“There you have it. Pro-democracy, working class Americans like teachers, firemen, cops, etc. are the “enemy”. The enemy! Now we have admitted proof the radical Right is truly an enemy of democracy and working class Americans. They demand stripping workers of their rights to collective bargaining for wages and work conditions, in addition to denying Muslims First Amendment rights.” Hmmm, do you mean “the enemy” like what OUR president told a group of Hispanic Americans that they should punish the Republicans because they were their enemy?
Again, speaking for myself, (and I suspect a fair number of conservatives) I don’t have a problem with PRIVATE unions, as long as they aren’t doing stupid things to intimidate others with card check and protesting right to work states. I do have a HUGE problem with PUBLIC unions. Those that work for the government are paid with public money, by definition. In other words they are paid by you and me, Dubya. The taxpayers. They aren’t working in sweat shops or dangerous working environments typically (cops and fireman notwithstanding since that is the nature of their jobs). They are working in well-regulated safety-wise jobs. As for their collective bargaining rights for wages, every time a city worker or other government employee gets a big raise through collective bargaining, it puts an additional burden on the taxpayers… you know, those folks that are also working Americans. As for your hyperbole of denying Muslim Americans their first amendment rights, that is just plain silly, sir.
Next, Bachmann may very well be onto something here. She is right about the dumbing down of our students’ education and teaching to the lowest common denominator. Hell, just the nonsense of social promotion to the next grade guarantees that we will have ever more students graduating from high school that cannot even read their diplomas, let alone have a basic knowledge of history, civics, or economics. It is in this way that you create more dependent Democratic voters though.
“The Tea Party did downgrade the U.S. credit rating, but they made no secret of their intentions and the American people voted them in anyway. Whether Standard and Poor did what they did for political reasons or analytical reasons, when a nation willfully chooses to take things to the brink of default, they should be downgraded.” Nice talking points! Standard and Poors threatened back in April of this year that they would consider down-grading our credit rating if we did not come up with at least $4 trillion in cuts to our budget. Despite the Tea Party’s best efforts, they were called terrorists by Democrats, including the Vice President of the United States. The ass-hat Congressman Mike Doyle ranted that the Republicans (Tea Party) were terrorists because they would not allow him to spend money. I have some decidedly very un-Christian thoughts on what I would say to Mr. Doyle if the chance ever presented itself.
The fact of the matter is that we raised the debt ceiling again, and even members of the Tea Party voted for it, including the Tea Party rock star Alan West. Further, there were NO cuts to the debt that were made whatsoever. All that we did was to cut how fast we are spending. The net result was more spending of money we do not have; not ANY cuts in our debt. Since we didn’t make ANY cuts, let alone the $4 Trillion that Standard and Poors warned us were needed, we received the credit downgrade. Yes, the Tea Partiers standing up and fighting against this only ensured Standard and Poors decision, but that is because they saw that both parties were not serious about reigning in our profligate spending.
If the Tea Party did not win as many seats as it did in 2010, I suspect that the debt ceiling would likely have been raised with a “clean bill” just like Obama originally requested. There obviously is no urgency or sense of need to address our debt crisis, because as Mr. Myste says, to the Democrats it is only a deficit crisis and a debt problem. The real issue is that if we keep moving forward with this extreme deficit, the debt will eventually be insurmountable to ever pay back in the lifetime of many generations.
As for Obama, God forbid if he wins election again in 2012. Who wants to bet that if he does win that by the end of 2016 we will still have a TRUE unemployment rate that is north of 10.0%? Luckily America is now realizing this. As for the economy, I think Matt Drudge said it best. The economy now belongs to Obama and the Democrats with “Barackalypse Now”. As for his likely re-election chances, Rush is right yet again by proclaiming that Obama is a “debt man walking”.
“You do not risk your country to promote your political agenda, or at least you should not.” I would agree with this, Mr. Myste, so I don’t know why the Democrats want to ensure the financial ruin of our economy and thereby the American nation simply to be able to spend more money to satisfy their dependent voting base of special interests. I think the debt ceiling should have been raised, BUT we should have insisted on far more than just the minimum of $4 trillion in REAL cuts so that we don’t endanger the financial prosperity and jobs of all Americans. Evidently, the Democrats are incapable of making such cuts even with us terrorist Tea Partiers holding them hostage by refusing to give them the ability to continue un-endless spending.
Mr. Paine,
You have really set me off this time, but I don’t have time to explode. I will take the rest of the day trying to get my head around the concept of “un-endlessness.” I know if it is endless it has no end, so I must assume that it is un-endless, it is un-never-ending, as in not having an endlessness, so I think I may agree with at least part of your statement.
Would that budgets were made up of revenue and spending and that every other president who thought he had a deficit emergency used tax revenues as part of the solution. Oh, wait, that is the case.
The argument you presented, the exact way you verbalized it, is the best argument I have heard to date, in that it moved me with a temporary sense of “you make a good point, but …” even with the false assumptions included. Stay tuned for my very predictable rebuttal.
P.S. Your last post on Fair and Unbalanced cracked me up. Kudos to you, sir. I have not seen that comedian side of you before.
Grandma should still be able to get her Obamacare mandated birth control. I don’t know why, but I have not been able to stop laughing all morning.
No Brown Shirt Tactics here.
None here either. This is what Progressive thugs think "Democracy" looks like. I tell you what, if they had showed up on my lawn I'd have shot the lot of them.
But hey, don't call them "Brown Shirts!"
I guess in a way you're right, Obama doesn't have Brown Shirts... they wear Purple.
Or black ones.
No one's interested in "showing up on your lawn", Free. They've got far better places to go. Besides, your place would be a total waste of energy.
Not to mention it's a good place to get a fatal case of lead poisoning.
High unemployment is no doubt swelling the ranks of the Republican/radical right's corps of dirty-tricks operatives. Add to that an impending influx of Bush loyalists in tea party camouflage reverting to GOP ranks and ordinary dirty-tricks status.
If this trend continues, the GOP and actual political goons like the O'Neill behind the Swiftboat liars, Roger Stone and Karl Rove will probably be able to field armies of operatives at minimum wage-per-troop cost.
HR,
The GOP’s obsession with ruining Obama overrules any concern for the American people. That has become obvious.
SW,
Massive unemployment and instability are fertile grounds for growing Right Wing extremism. No wonder the enemies of democracy are determined to demonize Obama and thwart any progress. They gain if Americans lose.
And they are winning. The rich always get their way. Hmm...I wonder why?
TP,
Thank you for your thoughtful remarks.
I really try being mindful of group associations, broad generalizations, and the assumption that what one member of a group says does not necessarily reflect the thoughts of all members of that group. But I’ve shown spokespersons, leaders and politicians representing those groups saying the reprehensible things. Big difference, my friend.
That straw poll is a meaningless, rigged fundraiser by Iowa republicans. They even admit so much about it being a fundraiser. Tickets to “”vote” are bought and sold.
Nader is correct but sadly as irrelevant as the truth he speaks, for many. Greedy people hate him, and so do those who claim union members are “union thugs” and "goons". He must be on to something.
Ever wonder how jobs become “well-regulated safety-wise jobs”? Unions are to thank for that. Work conditions are always an issue, especially for public safety workers and teachers. Labor needs a voice in work conditions or they deteriorate. Authoritarians see no need for such input from the serfs.
Yes, Obama used the word enemies while speaking off the cuff. Boehner expressed outrage at that word, but only when used by Obama, not the Tea Cult. Double standards? Certainly. Later Obama said “I probably should have used the word, "opponents" instead of enemies.” Yours is a false equivalency between selectively written words by spokespersons and extemporaneous speech. I have repeatedly shown the GOP has proven itself to be the vote suppressing enemy of democracy. I would certainly include the Tea Cult, as they are true republicans, who regard working Americans as their enemy. Their loyalty is to wealth first, country second, and the people last. Bottom line.
Could you tell me when the “liberal media” become the “statist media”? Funny how Rush never made that claim before January 20, 2009. I bet it will magically change again when a republican retakes the White House. Care to make that bet? Or could you please show me that term used between 2001 and 2008. If anything, it was an apt term for the corporate media’s war-fevered parroting of Bush/Cheney propaganda.
Also in the “funny how things changed after 2008” category, S&P gave top ratings to Wall Street and imposed no conditions for the debt ceiling. That also magically, or politically, changed after January 20, 2009, didn’t it?
The “funny how things changed after 2008” category has become broad indeed since, “The economy now belongs to Obama and the Democrats”. It’s nice to know there have been no lingering effects whatsoever of the Bush economy, except, of course for all those millions of jobs created by his tax cuts, and the little recession that required stimulus in the first place. Everything else is Obama’s fault because of his totally unobstructed socialist agenda, right? It’s a good thing Boehner’s House is here to rescue us. Nothing could possibly be their fault. None of those Republicans helped Bush’s agenda in any way, right? Of course, Bush is now absolved of all of this mess, anyway. Drudge says so.
I bet another Texas governor will make everything just exactly perfect again.
Denying Muslim Americans their first amendment rights was not just plain silly, sir, nor hyperbole. Tea Cult leader Williams was a rabid crusader against the Manhattan community center they called a “ground zero mosque”.
In defending Bachmann’s hysteria you claim poor education levels create more dependent Democratic voters. You couldn’t be further from reality. Texas has long been in the bottom tier for high school graduation rates and what has that resulted in? A solid red state. For the most Orwellian and authoritarian party, “Ignorance is strength”.
“Also in the ‘funny how things changed after 2008’ category, S&P gave top ratings to Wall Street and imposed no conditions for the debt ceiling. That also magically, or politically, changed after January 20, 2009, didn’t it?”
Do you know why that is, Dubya? Probably because the national debt damn near doubled under Obama in two years to $14.3 TRILLION. I think that is a pretty darn good reason for the credit rating agencies to become a wee bit nervous; Don’t you?
As for the Obama economy, I have repeatedly acknowledged that Bush started this mess. He did so by spending like a Democrat, thus pissing off old school Republicans that still cared about fiscal responsibility, hence the rise of the Tea Party.
I am hesitant to even rebut your Muslim rights statement for fear of diverting the course of the debate. Let’s just say that I can understand your point of view regarding the ground zero mosque. I think there are myriads of good reasons why good people objected to its construction right there none-the-less. If you insist on delving deeper into this irrelevant topic, I can happily oblige you though.
As for education, if you look at the most progressive cities in the country and their graduation rates and educational rankings you will almost invariably find that they are the poorest performers.
Paine, not that it will get through to you or matter to you, because we've gone around about this before, but here goes again.
The bulk of debt increase you cite was locked in the day Obama was sworn in, in January, 2009. The biggest single thing Obama added to the debt in his first two years was PUTTING THE MIDEAST WARS ON BUDGET, not on the tab, as the Bush administration had been doing since 2001.
Obama added to the deficit and debt by, guess what? Cutting taxes. By adding a troop surge in Afghanistan.
Aside from those, virtually all the spending of any notable size the Obama administration did was concentrated on spurring demand to keep the economy from getting worse and dealing with natural disasters.
Beyond dealing with the mess left to him, show me the grandiose, expensive new programs Obama has squandered billions on. You can't because they don't exist.
Take your complaints to George W. Bush and to congressional Republicans. Demand they change Medicare Part D so the government can negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for that program, the same way other countries do that, and the same way the VA does it. That would save some taxpayer money without really hurting anyone.
T. Payne, you said...
"As for education, if you look at the most progressive cities in the country and their graduation rates and educational rankings you will almost invariably find that they are the poorest performers."
I believe any information readily available would be skewed, and would easily, but incorrectly, support your point. It's usually apparent that most big cities consist of large minority populations [i.e., lower socioeconomic levels] within their boundaries. I think a more meaningful portrayal would be to compare the minority graduation levels within typical blue states against the same in typical, or commonly, red states.
Or, we can just use the state-by-state comparison here.
at minimum wage-per-troop cost.
Nah, we're donating our time for free at this point we're so sick of Obama.
As for Unions, I have no problem with them until people are forced to join them. A union in a right to work state is fine, a union in say... Michigan is a criminal conspiracy. Just look at my links that show that, on video no less.
I bet another Texas governor will make everything just exactly perfect again.
This sounds like perfection to me
"And I’ll promise you this: I’ll work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can."
- Rick Perry
That is exactly what I'm looking for.
Free0352, you claimed...
"That [Rick Perry] is exactly what I'm looking for."
I would have thought this is more like what you've been looking for. Excerpts below:
"[Patri] Friedman [grandson of Milton Friedman] wants to establish new sovereign nations built on oil-rig-type platforms anchored in international waters—free from the regulation, laws, and moral suasion of any landlocked country. They'd be small city-states at first, although the aim is to have tens of millions of seasteading residents by 2050. Architectural plans for a prototype involve a movable, diesel-powered, 12,000-ton structure with room for 270 residents, with the idea that dozens—perhaps even hundreds—of these could be linked together. Friedman hopes to launch a flotilla of offices off the San Francisco coast next year; full-time settlement, he predicts, will follow in about seven years; and full diplomatic recognition by the United Nations..."
...and...
"'The ultimate goal,'...'is to open a frontier for experimenting with new ideas for government.' This translates into the founding of ideologically oriented micro-states on the high seas, a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."
Needless to say, this will be interesting. "Looser" building codes? On a man-made island? What a hoot...a true comedy on the high seas! If this thing gets off the ground (no pun intended), and survives and thrives in four years after implementation, I'll convert to your moronic idea of pure, unadulterated, libertarianism. I'll bet my last Silver Certificate that John Donne is going to be proven correct. Until that day, as Mr. Donne rightly observed, "No man is an island..."
Wow, it didn't take long for the liberal talking points about Perry to get around did they? You can go to just about any liberal blog and read the same thing as being said here about Govt Perry.
As John Myste has tried to teach me, it is fool hardy to lump all people from one group into one way of thinking. Just like all members of the Tea Party do not think the same way about Gov. Perry, the same can be said for all liberals, they do not think the same way about him, right? But you wouldn't know that from reading the liberal posts today, wow, the fax machines must have been running overtime.
TP,
What SW said.
Actually Bush spent like a republican. He and Reagan both grew the debt more than the dems before them. Not only did he spend like a republican, he was lavish with corporate welfare like a republican, he denied Medicare drug price negotiation like a republican, he cut taxes for the rich like a republican and started wars on credit like a republican.
My relevant and true statement was, Tea Cult leader Williams was a rabid crusader against the Manhattan community center they called a “ground zero mosque”. I know there are many emotion based and bigoted reasons against it. However there are Constitutional reasons for allowing it.
Free,
"And I’ll promise you this: I’ll work every day to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can."
You are a good republican. We can trust a corporatist, Bible-thumping, Armageddonist theocrat to do just that, right?
JG,
Can you just imagine the quality of the water under the Randian “waterworlds”? Swimmers would need tetanus shots, if they survived the other toxins.
Thank you for the link to the Blue State, Red State comparisons. Last, but not least, we see the famous “Red State Socialism”.
For those who may not care to go look, here are the highlights.
Blue State Red State Comparisons:
Education: Blue states are better educated than red states.
Degrees: Blue staters are more likely to go to college
Divorce: Blue staters are more likely to stay married
Mothers: Blue staters are less likely to get pregnant in their teen years
Lynchings: Blue staters are less likely to ignore the law
Slavery: The Red States have racism and the victims of racism.
Shootings : Blue Staters are less likely to shoot each other to death
Driving : Blue Staters drive better
Crime and Drunk Driving: Law abiding Blues don't let their friends drive drunk
Income, Success, Big Government spending v tax revenue: Blues make more money, are more successful, and have to carry the Red welfare states on our backs.
Just The FOX(R),
Oh, my goodness gracious, you're hallucinating again. All I said about Perry before your comment was, "I bet another Texas governor will make everything just exactly perfect again."
Please take your sedative and calm down. We'll be here when you have time to see more clearly and read a little better.
"The GOP’s obsession with ruining Obama overrules any concern for the American people. That has become obvious."
Dave, can't you be satisfied debating Republican policies? Do you have to assume you know their motives, too? It's probably completely foreign to you that the GOP might think defeating Obama is better for the American people than a second term.
We can trust a corporatist, Bible-thumping, Armageddonist theocrat to do just that, right?
Yeah why not? Gotta vote for someone, why on earth would I choose Obama over that?
Free0352, you said...
"Yeah why not? Gotta vote for someone, why on earth would I choose Obama over that?"
The larger question is, why vote for either? They're two peas in the pod.
Sure, go ahead, vote for Perry.
"Actually Bush spent like a republican. He and Reagan both grew the debt more than the dems before them."
I see this repeated quite often and am compelled to correct the record. You forget that all spending originates in congress. This chart breaks out the debt by congressional party and tells a very different picture.
Official data on the national debt is that Reagan increased it $1.3 trillion (over 8 years), Bush II increased it $2.4 trillion (over 8 years), and Obama increased it $3.5 trillion through 2010 (just 2 years). We can all have different opinions, but we don't get to have different facts.
Dave,
Dave, can't you be satisfied debating Republican policies? Do you have to assume you know their motives, too? It's probably completely foreign to you that the GOP might think defeating Obama is better for the American people than a second term.
I actually think a good many of the Republicans do believe exactly this and they are not faking.
Republicans,
I don't mean to insult you, but it's actually what I think.
HR,
The president, not congress, signs the debt into reality.
I’m not arguing that Obama didn’t raise the debt. Bush’s recession, unfunded wars, tax cuts without offsets, and Medicare giveaway to pharmaceutical corporations are now all magically “Obama’s debt”.
I’m happy to debate policies. GOP policies are nearly always intended to benefit only their kind of “American people”.
Republicans have stated their motives and priority. Mitch McConnell said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”. They openly wish for Obama to fail and have obstructed him in every way, even on policies the Republicans promoted before Obama was elected. They refuse to compromise and have scorned and demonized the American peoples’ democratically elected president.
Most of the American people want the rich to pay more taxes. The American people want government safety nets. It is very clear who Republicans consider “real Americans” and who they represent. They have proven their contempt for democracy and embrace of plutocracy. Tyranny of the minority has always been their cause.
This aint rocket science.
John,
People who vote for republicans are well intentioned. I don’t question their motives. They have a lot of beliefs that were indoctrinated into them. So do Moonies. They listen only to their savior, Bush family friend and fellow republican, Sun Myung Moon. Republican voters listen to their vast right wing propaganda network of FOX(R), Limbaugh, etc. If they are all I listened to, I would likely vote for republicans too.
Dave,
"Most of the American people want the rich to pay more taxes."
Why wouldn't "MOST" want this, when 48% of Americans (sounds like most to me) pay no federal income tax now and some cases receive earned income credit checks on income they didn't make?
Why is it fair for 52% of Americans to fund the federal govt and the other 48% pay nothing?? Do you really think that if you increase taxes the wealthy you can balance the budget?
If I paid no income tax to the Fed's, I'd want increase taxes on those who did pay taxes, what is so shocking about that? As long as I didn't have to pay taxes, I'd be happy to let someone else do it.
Speaking of unfunded wars, Dave, when is the endless War Against Poverty that stated in the 60's going to end? If the budget isn't balanced, doesn't that make LBJ's war unfunded? Unless of course, I missed the victory parade down Broadway in NYC.
"Republicans have stated their motives and priority. Mitch McConnell said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”."
That's right, we want to defeat him. You assume the motive is an obsession and that it takes precedence over our concern for the American people. I don't think any Republican has ever said that, just lefties who think we're evil. Kindly stick to policy because you clearly do not understand why we do what we do.
I suppose now you'll tell me that it's not the single most important thing Democrats do to reelect Obama. Or that it was not the single most important thing to defeat Bush in '04 or McCain in '08.
"They openly wish for Obama to fail and have obstructed him in every way, even on policies the Republicans promoted before Obama was elected."
That's right, for the good of the American people. We don't want the U.S. to be fundamentally transformed.
"They refuse to compromise and have scorned and demonized the American peoples’ democratically elected president."
True, we won't compromise our principles in order to advance Obama's. If you have principles, I'm certain you understand what that's like. If you have no principles, this is probably a foreign concept.
You're going with demonization? How long is your memory? Perhaps you don't remember the treatment of George W. Bush, the "war criminal." He too was democratically elected. Politics is a contact sport.
The Heathen Republican said...
"Perhaps you don't remember the treatment of George W. Bush, the 'war criminal.'"
He wasn't, er...isn't?
and...
"He too was democratically elected."
He was? C'mon!
Do you naively believe any U.S. presidents are elected by the people any more? Wake up!
@Heathen,
We can all have different opinions, but we don't get to have different facts. I place charts somewhere in my file system proving both sides of the story. I seem to have misplaced them, now when I need them most.
You both can and do, I keep trying to convince people of that, but no one will listen. Each pundit produces his own facts and charts. There is a lot of interpretation going on. Obama’s debt is Bush’s debt. Obama added the war to the budget and did not stop the cascading effect of Bush’s wars. Obama kept and extended the Bush Tax cuts to appease a republican congress.
I know, nonsense, those are Obama’s debts! He signed them into law. He failed to undo the debris-collecting tumbleweed of disaster Bush brought to America. I agree with everyone!
It's a shell game.
Just The FOX(R),
In other words, “Screw what most Americans want. This is Amerika Inc. not a democracy. The rich must have everything their way, and they want it now”.
Yes, we get it. Come back when you have something different to say.
JG,
HR is not naive. He is doing his job. And telling the truth is not his job.
We see HR admits to the motives and obstruction and scorn for compromise. He’s proud of that. He doesn’t “think any Republican has ever said that the motive is an obsession and that it takes precedence over our concern for the American people.” I don’t think any republican has said that either.
We understand completely why HR cannot acknowledge basic truths. He cannot acknowledge truths like Bush’s war of aggression was based on falsehoods, like torture, like the political outing of a covert operative, like illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans, etc. etc. HR cannot tell us where all those great jobs are that their tax cuts for the rich were supposed to bring. But he will tell us about many, many more of those jobs, jobs that will appear when we cut the taxes for the rich even more.
He also cannot acknowledge the reality that Republicans represent nearly exclusively the economic elite upper class, along with a little Bible thumping distractions tossed in for their low income supporters. Since our friend is Heathen Republican, that leaves him one primary open agenda for discussion. And he must do what he can to distract our thread into a mire of money talk. Money. He wants to talk about taxes, spending, debt, anything at all about money. Why? It is their primary value, of course. In Republican World money talks. And money screams so loudly in our politics, nobody else is heard. This is the reason why we see their class war on democracy framed around their “Me-First-Country-Second” ideology.
HR,
Not to follow you completely off the topic of my post, but Liberals passionately agree with you, and share this deep and firm principle.
We don't want the U.S. to be fundamentally transformed.
We want our democracy back.
John,
Thank you, sir, for the splendid links!
Dave,
I'm back, and your response to my post does not address the points listed therein.
For that reason I'll post it here again. Unless that's trolling.
Dave,
"Most of the American people want the rich to pay more taxes."
Why wouldn't "MOST" want this, when 48% of Americans (sounds like most to me) pay no federal income tax now and some cases receive earned income credit checks on income they didn't make?
Why is it fair for 52% of Americans to fund the federal govt and the other 48% pay nothing?? Do you really think that if you increase taxes the wealthy you can balance the budget?
If I paid no income tax to the Fed's, I'd want increase taxes on those who did pay taxes, what is so shocking about that? As long as I didn't have to pay taxes, I'd be happy to let someone else do it.
Speaking of unfunded wars, Dave, when is the endless War Against Poverty that stated in the 60's going to end? If the budget isn't balanced, doesn't that make LBJ's war unfunded? Unless of course, I missed the victory parade down Broadway in NYC.
JTF, Dubya did not respond to your post because his job is not to tell the truth. His job is to assume evil motivations that he thinks Republicans have for doing the things they do.
His understanding of economics is a twisted mess of Keynes and Marx and doesn't seem to realize that both are historically proven failures.
He thinks Republicans want to make Obama a one-term president because they are racist and put party above country. He doesn't realize that making Obama a one-term president will likely be the only thing that might save this country and return a modicum of democracy and economic prosperity to this once great country that they have fundamentally transformed into a bunch of Me-first-country-second whiners that want more of other peoples' money to pay for their social entitlement programs. And then they have the audacity to call us greedy when we complain that maybe they should perhaps do something to at least try and provide for themselves first.
That is why he didn't bother responding to your facts, JTF. They don't jive with the fantasy world in which Dubya lives where only the wealthy don't really pay taxes and rule the country by fiat.
Did you see where Bachmann wished Elvis a happy birthday on Aug 16th? LOL--as my husband said, "Poser!"
And Dubya, good work, dude. I've discovered when people employ dumbass Randian terms like "statist"--avoiding the stupid IS the wise choice.
Just The FOX(R),
Look up trolling. Oh, that’s right, you don’t look things up.
Deliberate distraction from the post's topic is considered trolling.
This addressed your “points”:
In other words, “Screw what most Americans want. This is Amerika Inc. not a democracy. The rich must have everything their way, and they want it now”?
All you need to do is tell me how everything you say is not encapsulated in those words. Go ahead. Try it.
As I said, yes, we get it. Come back when you have something different to say.
TP,
All Just the Troll's "facts" have been addressed before. You have pushed the same things and also ignored the response.
Everything you say after, "He thinks" is laughably incorrect. I didn’t call you or the troll greedy. And what makes you think I haven’t provided for myself? Am I a welfare recipient because I dare accuse the Right of betraying democracy? No, I’m stuck paying for a damn war your boys started and refuse to pay for, Now, there’s Republican “character”, for ya.
You seem to reflect the paranoia and delusions form your fellow Rightists. Look! A Marxist! You're bending quite low to stroke the troll.
Since you have the answers and know what’s best, aka giving the rich everything they want; now it's your turn to teach us.
Where's the great Reagan "trickle down"?
Where are the Bush tax cut jobs?
Somewhere with all those “nukular” aluminum tubes, WMD’s, and Saddam’s al-Qaeda buddies, no doubt. You can find all that down George W. Bush Boulevard in Baghdad.
Can you say “historically proven failures"? All wrapped in a big fat corporatist, democracy-crushing, bloody Right Wing (R).
Daisy,
The Rightists love to curtsy and bow to the memory of Elvis the Icon. After all, like Rush “Sanctity-Of-Marriage” Limbaugh, he was the wholesome antithesis to those immoral drug addled hippies that ruined everything, right?
Dave, answer my questions and position and data and prove me wrong instead of calling me name's in an attempt to take the position of an intellectual superior.
Why is it ok for the 52% of Americans who pay ALL the federal income taxes to be told they should pay more? Especially in light of the fact that to do so will still not make a dent in the deficit.
When will the endless War on Poverty be over? How many more trillions of dollars must be spent in this endless war?
Why should the 48% of Americans who pay NO federal income tax continue to do so? Shouldn't they have a "little skin in the game"?
I do not see any proof in your quote "This is Amerika Inc. not a democracy. The rich must have everything their way, and they want it now”?
So what don't you look up sources and prove this to be correct?
I have never seen such lass warfare since the start of the OCT, 1917 Revolution in Russia. And look how well spreading the wealth around did for that country.
Heathen Republican wrote: "Dave, can't you be satisfied debating Republican policies? Do you have to assume you know their motives, too? It's probably completely foreign to you that the GOP might think defeating Obama is better for the American people than a second term."
Many Republican citizens -- as opposed to pols, propagandists and operatives -- no doubt believe exactly that. And why wouldn't they, given the propaganda they submerse themselves in?
A few decades ago, I would agree that attributing motives to all Republican pols, that they want Obama to be a failed president, no matter who or what gets hurt, would've been a mistake. That was then. Republican pols are a different breed today. They no longer care about governing in the broad public interest. They want money, power and complete contrtol for the indefinite future, period. They want to destroy the Democratic Party and its constituent groups. They've proven they are entirely willing to wreck our economy, government and political system, and financially ruin millions of people and small businesses, to get their way.
Republicans have thus created serious trust issues within people who aren't equally greedy, cynical, selfish, power hungry and/or gullible and willingly duped.
(continues)
(continued)
I remember Reagan's first couple of years as president. He got stiff resistance on some things, but a lot of Democratic cooperation and compromise on others. Why? Because many Democrats came out of the 1980 election with the old traditional belief "the people have spoken," meaning the people wanted a lot of what Reagan campaigned on. Many Democrats, including the leadership, also realized that a failed president could mean a failed country, and nobody wanted that. Finally, some Democrats, especiially those who had been in Congress a long time, had seen enough to know that what goes around comes around. Meaning, if we frustrate Reagan's every move, one of these days we'll have another Democrat in the White House and Republicans will do the same thing to him. This kind of thing can get out of hand, so it's best to not get started with it.
HR, I don't know how old you are or how long you've followed these things, but you need to realize today's Republican Party and establishment is something different from what's been seen in this country since the 1920s', worse, even, because of the clout of Southern whites and fundamentalist Christians, and because its power structure has abandoned any care about reputation and any concern about being held accountable.
That last, BTW, isn't just conservative extremists' fault or Republican voters' fault. Blame also accrues to independents and the great human void of gullible know-nothings in the electorate. Americans haven't gotten accountability for serious wrongdong on the right, all the way up to treason, because they haven't demanded it, haven't elected people who would pursue it. So Republican pols and operatives just keep getting worse and doing worse. They will do that until they either have complete control, or until the public wakes up and demands, and gets, real accountability.
S.W. Anderson,
One small question for you. Why is it truth when liberals believe news from the sources they follow, but the news sources Republicans follow are propaganda?
Example: Now that GoV. Perry has thrown his stetson into the ring, his college records will be disclosed to the public. I agree that they should.
But as that is good news reporting, how come President Obama's college records have never been released, much less being brought up as something the public might be interested in? Or as in the case of President Bush, former business partners were revealed. Again no problem with that. However again, there was to me knowledge no news reporting or investigation on the business deal President Obama made on the property for his Chicago home.
Shoot, since President Bush's former buddies in the National Guard were interviewed, I'd like to see one interview from a former student of Prof. Obama, wouldn't you?
S.W.Anderson,
And while it's fresh in the news, how is it not propaganda, when MSNBC is caught and force to apologize to Gov Perry after getting caught doctoring tapes in a manner that made the Gov appear to be racist? Ed Schultz who I as a conservative watch, had to go on his cable show last night and do the I'm sorry bit for MSNBC. Thank you Ed for being honest when your network is caught in a smearing lie.
The there is this, the much hated Glen Beck, whose radio show I never listen to, just as I never watched his t.v. show, ran this information.
Louis Farrakhan excusing the slaughter of our soldiers committed by Nidal Malik Hassan at Fort Hood, saying that Hassan wasn’t a terrorist at all but rather he just acted in frustration after hearing our American soldiers tell him stories of how they raped and sodomized Muslim women. And Beck wants to know why no one in the Media is paying attention to one of the most dangerous, radical clerics in America. Instead they would rather focus on Perry and his statements about Bernanke.
Is that propaganda or just shitty reporting from the news industry?
They [republicans/conservatives/libertarians... you know- THEY] no longer care about governing in the broad public interest.
If you mean the progressive interest you are correct.
They want money, power and complete contrtol for the indefinite future, period.
Sure, that's why they want a weak government, because running that small, weak government is soooooo powerful. WTF?
They want to destroy the Democratic Party and its constituent groups.
Which is good for America.
They've proven they are entirely willing to wreck our economy,
Too late, you guys already did that.
government and political system,
Which is broken beyond repair and must be scraped and rebooted. Again good for America.
and financially ruin millions of people and small businesses,
...by not forcing them to pay a lot of money in taxes? Um... WTF.
It's your democrats who have destroyed the American dream, ate it's middle class, driven it's capital over seas, limited rights at every turn, propogated racism and discrimination, sold our country to forign powers, and destroyed the American family.
The best thing we can do for America is eliminate the Democrat party, the cancer of the free world.
Just,
One small question for you. Why is it truth when liberals believe news from the sources they follow, but the news sources Republicans follow are propaganda?
I hate to point out the obvious, but my mother made this same argument to me while explaining that a dog is running around with cat's head. The dog’s original head, it would seem, had been crushed, and an emergency procedure was done to save Lassie, or Prince, or Spooky, or whatever the dog's name was. A dying cat donated its perfectly functioning head to the dying dog.
I questioned the story as unlikely. I asked her where she heard it and she informed me that it was in the National Inquirer.
When I challenged her source, she accused me of Poisoning the Wells.
"Why are the sources you use for your news valid, but mine aren't good enough?" she asked.
Fortunately, I was able to make her understand.
I explained to her that I am asked the same question by those who cite FOX as their journalistic source.
She as outraged, of course, that I would compare her benign publications of choice to a political machine such as FOX.
I hope this helps.
Thank you SW Anderson for making my point:
Motive: "They no longer care about governing in the broad public interest."
Motive: "They want money, power and complete control for the indefinite future, period."
Motive: "They want to destroy the Democratic Party and its constituent groups."
Don't you know you simply CANNOT know the motives of anyone but yourself? Since you and Dave opened the door, do you know what I think of Democrats? They govern in the interests of unions, college professors, trial attorneys, and people who don't pay taxes, NOT the broad public interest. They want money, power, and complete control at all levels of government. They want to destroy the Tea Party and the Republican Party. How close did I get?
But I don't know if any of that is true, so I prefer to debate bad progressive policies.
Heathen Republican wrote:
"Official data on the national debt is that Reagan increased it $1.3 trillion (over 8 years), Bush II increased it $2.4 trillion (over 8 years), and Obama increased it $3.5 trillion through 2010 (just 2 years). We can all have different opinions, but we don't get to have different facts."
The bulk of the Obama administration spending you cite was locked in the day Obama was sworn in, in January, 2009. The biggest single thing Obama added to the debt in his first two years was PUTTING THE MIDEAST WARS ON BUDGET, not on the tab, as the Bush administration had been doing since 2001.
Obama added to the deficit and debt by, guess what? Cutting taxes. By adding a troop surge in Afghanistan.
Aside from those, virtually all other spending of any notable size the Obama administration did was concentrated on spurring demand to keep the economy from getting worse and to make long overdue infrastructure repairs and improvements, and dealing with natural disasters.
Re: the debt-increase totals you cited for Reagan, The Worst President in U.S. History and Obama. Instead of waxing glib about having our own facts, perhaps you'd be good enough to vet those numbers and then specify whether they're in terms of contemporary dollars or current dollars. It makes a difference.
I suspect inflation is not accounted for in the totals. If that is so, Reagan's $1.3 trillion would be more like $4.5 trillion to $5 trillion in 2011 dollars.
"perhaps you'd be good enough to vet those numbers and then specify whether they're in terms of contemporary dollars or current dollars. It makes a difference."
SW, you've just revealed your own complete ignorance and you need to hang your head in shame. The national debt is a cumulative total and should never be adjusted for inflation. Annual deficits can be adjusted for inflation, but not the debt.
As a result of your confounding ignorance (I'd say stupidity, but that sounds too much like a personal attack instead of the factual statement that it is), I'm forced to disregard your remarks. Next you'll probably try to pin Obama's spending on Bush... oh, there it is.
John,
Oh, I get it, it's propaganda in the eyes of the person who disagrees with what has been reported. Other wise it is the "news".
Heathen Republican, I don't know if you're ignorant or hope I am so your attempt at passing off BS as a response will succeed, along with your gratuitous name calling.
"The national debt is a cumulative total and should never be adjusted for inflation."
If you look up the current grand total, what you get is the total without accounting for inflation. However, in typical Republican fashion, that part about "should never be adjusted for inflation" was retrieved from that storehouse of self-serving Republican facts — the Republican ass.
Comparing the increase in debt under one president with that of another president at a later time can only be sensibly done if inflation is accounted for. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. The point of your original statement about what added debt different presidents racked up was to make a comparison.
You call me ignorant. You're engaging in another trademark Republican tactic: projection.
Re: Bush's responsibility for the current economic mess. The memory hole isn't working all that well, and attempts at revisionist history aren't either. But don't let that stop you. You know what they say about repeating a lie often enough.
Just,
Oh, I get it, it's propaganda in the eyes of the person who disagrees with what has been reported. Other wise it is the "news."
I know you think you are refuting my point, but that actually is my point. It is the nature of "facts," my friend.
To the degree that news is perceived as uncredited and used for non-journalistic purposes, it is not necessarily news.
Fine SW, I'll offer a short tutorial for your benefit. As I said, the national debt is a cumulative total. Let's look at something else that accumulates for comparison: your savings account. If you save $10 a month for 10 years, you will have saved $1,200 (plus any interest earned). In the first year, you saved $120, but if you were to adjust that for inflation, your total on paper would not match your actual bank balance. In terms of the national debt, it's the final bank balance that matters.
I said it was appropriate to adjust annual deficits for inflation, so let's find another comparison, like your salary. If I ask you what you earned 10 years ago, that amount would need to be adjusted to inflation because we're talking about a single amount within a specific period of time. Your salary is not cumulative. Deficits also are not cumulative, although the annual deficit amount is added to the debt, just as your annual savings amount is added to your savings account.
The fact that you are standing firm on your ignorance is very informative. I've asked Dave before and now I'll ask you: Are you so stubborn that you can't admit when you're wrong about something and have to learn it from a... Republican?
I'm not conflating deficit and debt, but applying a sound principle and the accepted method for making such a comparison.
The national debt increased a certain amount between when Reagan became president and when he left office. Same thing for The Worst President in U.S. History and for Obama. If you want to compare the increases during those administrations sensibly and accurately, you have to adjust for inflation.
The standard way of doing this would be to calculate and express the three amounts in terms of 1980 dollars or, after that time, in 2016 dollars.
"Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants" has been included in this weeks Sites To See. I hope this helps to attract many new visitors.
http://asthecrackerheadcrumbles.blogspot.com/2011/08/sites-to-see_19.html
As per Fishawks news, congratulations to you Dubya!
Fishhawk,
Thanks for the link.
TP,
Thank you for your input. It makes this a more fun reading experience...for those of us twisted enough to chatter on about stuff we can't do anything about. :-)
If you want to compare the increases during those administrations sensibly and accurately, you have to adjust for inflation.
Firstly if you look at the rate of spending Obama wins hands down. Second, all that spending he and other President's do contributes to inflation. If they don't like the inflationary rate, tell them to quit borrowing and therefore printing so much money.
Free0352, you said...
"Second, all that spending he and other President's do contributes to inflation. If they don't like the inflationary rate, tell them to quit borrowing and therefore printing so much money."
Talk to Ben Bernanke about that. Obama's only a figurehead. He has no real power -- only the power of being the PR spokesman for someone...or something...that really runs the show. The Fed's the culprit with the printing press, and in effect, extorting our lives and livelihoods...for the benefit of a select few.
Agreed Jefferson, the FED is very corrupt. I'd like to sic Ron Paul on them and flat abolish it.
Free0352, this is another point we agree upon, although your scenario seems very unlikely (if not impossible).
As I'm sure you know, JFK attempted something in this very direction (with the signing of E.O. 11110), but it wasn't exactly looked upon as being elistist-friendly toward his banking and corporate adversaries. As a matter of fact, it's speculated that this may have been the primary reason for his public execution on a Dallas street.
In the remote possibility that Congressman Paul were elected president (which, as I've noted in previous comments, if elections meant anything, they'd be declared illegal), it's apparent to me he'd suffer a similar fate.
More special treatment from the regime.
(The Hill) — The Obama administration granted another 106 waivers last month from part of the healthcare reform law — the first round of three-year waivers the Health and Human Services Department has approved.
The new approvals bring the total number of waivers to 1,472, according to HHS. Those figures cover waivers granted through the end of July. HHS will stop granting new waivers after September.
Some health plans, usually offered to low-wage workers, place caps on how much they’ll pay out in benefits over a year. The healthcare reform law gradually bans those limits, but allows HHS to grant waivers to companies that would be more likely to quit offering coverage than to provide more robust coverage.
HHS has been approving a new batch of one-year waivers at the end of each month. The department announced it would cut off applications in September, but let companies that received a one-year exemption extend that waiver through 2014. The 106 waivers approved in July will last three years.
Points I've made that are still unaddressed in this thread (which is a shame, because I think they are important points):
1) "I suppose now you'll tell me that it's not the single most important thing Democrats do to reelect Obama. Or that it was not the single most important thing to defeat Bush in '04 or McCain in '08."
2) "we won't compromise our principles in order to advance Obama's. If you have principles, I'm certain you understand what that's like. If you have no principles, this is probably a foreign concept."
3) "do you know what I think of Democrats? They govern in the interests of unions, college professors, trial attorneys, and people who don't pay taxes, NOT the broad public interest. They want money, power, and complete control at all levels of government. They want to destroy the Tea Party and the Republican Party. How close did I get?"
And SW Anderson, regarding adjusting the debt for inflation, I wish I could say your obstinate ignorance surprises me, yet I find it oddly reassuring.
HR,
You must have missed it. Not to follow you completely off the topic of my post, but Liberals passionately agree with you, and share this deep and firm principle.
"We don't want the U.S. to be fundamentally transformed."
We want our democracy back.
I will once again deviate from the subject matter just for you.
1. The single most important thing for both Democrats and Republicans is obviously getting reelected. The GOP’s obstruction and opposition to the American people’s choice for president, and therefore the will of the majority of Americans, is the more egregious assault on democracy.
2. I’ve stated my principles throughout my blog. Constitutionally rescind corporate personhood and money as free speech to begin the restoration of our democracy. Restoring democracy is every bit a principle to the Left as is “In Greed We Trust” on the Right.
3. Both Democrats and Republicans govern in the interests of their campaign contributors over the general public to the detriment of democracy, no matter what you “think”.
You may now rejoin the Tea Cult chorus in calling advocates of democracy thugs, goons, and the enemy.
Heard an interesting question yesterday that I would like ask here.
Are Black American's better off today than they were under President Reagan?
Just The FOX(R),
Another question? Since I’m such a nice bleeding heart kind of guy, I’ll answer it.
First, a repeated reminder:
Deliberate distraction from the post's topic is considered trolling.
Answer: Some are better off, some are not. One thing for certain, many more are in prison thanks to Reagan’s jacked up draconian drug war. Maybe you should ask, “Are Black Americans, or all Americans for that matter, better off today than they were under Clinton?”
I’m done answering you until you answer me.
Remember this? Now I want some answers.
Since I have answered your latest questions, I have two questions for you.
Who hates union workers, and wants to strip their rights, the most? Fascists, dictators, Soviet and Chinese Communists, or... Republicans?
And, what are they all afraid of most?
Here’s a bonus question, where if you answer it, you don’t need to answer the two above:
Where are all the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts?
We’ll wait.
Jefferson,
I don't think "bankers" killed JFK, I think a communist did. Was that sanctioned by Cuba or the USSR? That is a possible senario I must admit since Oswald was a communist. That said, I think he was a lone wacko.
Tin foil hats plots aside, I did read about JFK issuing Tressuries directly, and it was not popular with wall street because that course of action would cut the FED and many investment banks out of "the finanical loop" costing them billions.
I franky don't care about that, and still think it would be a positive course of action.
Campaigning in Iowa on Monday, the Texas governor [Rick Perry] said he would consider it "treasonous" if Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke "prints more money between now and the election" in November 2012 -- a fresh sign of the political heat the central bank faces as it tries to right the stumbling U.S. economy.
"If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all will do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," Perry said to laughter from supporters in Iowa.
"Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, treasonous in my opinion," he said.
One of the reasons I like him.
Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in "capital") into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources ("production") and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously.
The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth:
- the "economic means"
- the "political means"
One, the above way of production and exchange, he called the "economic means."
The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed "the political means" to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy in production is the "natural" path for man: the means for his survival and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic, for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it.
The "political means" siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer's incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. In the long run, the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source of his own supply.
Dave, I already answered you question.
Who hates union workers, and wants to strip their rights, the most? Fascists, dictators, Soviet and Chinese Communists, or... Republicans?
And, what are they all afraid of most?
Here it is again.
Just the Facts! said...
Soviet and Chinese Communists, why? Because of what happened in Poland when the Unions over threw their communist government. On paper the communists talked a good talk about unions. In reality they were afraid of any organization that could threaten the political hold of the leaders. Be it a Union, chess club or church. It is no secret that union leadership was only allowed to rule under the thumb of the Party. That the outcome Union elections were controlled by the Party.
I suspect that the Communist Party's hatred or fear of unions is no different than any dictator, be they Fascists, Communists or socialists. Any organization they do not control is a threat to the leadership of the Party/ruling class.
To assume the Republicans "hate unions" is to assume they have complete power like the they institutions listed above. They do not have that power. Would I be correct in guessing that your question stems from the changes put into place by Gov Walker in WI?
August 14, 2011 10:34 PM
JTF,
Thanks, that reminded me of my problem with your answer.
To assume the Republicans "hate unions" is to assume they have complete power like the they institutions listed above. They do not have that power.
We do not “assume” the Republicans hate unions. There’s a very long history of Republican opposition, from suppression to the destruction of unions.
Unions are always under assault from Republicans, no matter if they’re in power or not. Democracy and a middle class thrive when anti-union parties are out of power.
Fair enough. You needn’t bother answering the bonus question. Nobody answers that one, for some reason.
Well Dave, considering I was responding to your statements, I guess I felt confident that I wasn't straying off topic (or that I was doing so with your consent). I am heartened to hear that you don't want our country fundamentally transformed. Perhaps you could let our esteemed President know that.
1) If Republicans opposing a democratically elected Democratic president is "an egregious assault on democracy," I guess Democrats opposing a democratically elected Republican president in 2004 was an equal "egregious assault." I don't believe either are an egregious assault, but instead are a demonstration of the effectiveness of our democratic republic.
I suppose, similarly, that Democrats opposing the American's choice for the House of Representatives in 2010 is also an egregious assault on democracy in your eyes? Or is that just trying to take your democracy back?
2) Great, I'm very happy that you have principles. My point, then, was that you must therefore understand why we conservatives will not compromise our principles to advance Obama's agenda. Will you compromise your principles to advance the next Republican's agenda? If not, will it be fair to say that you "refuse to compromise" and scorn and demonize the American people's choice for president?
3) I'm happy that we can agree again.Apparently both Democrats and Republicans are not governing in the interests of the American people, according to Dave Dubya. Why is it, then, that you only call out Republicans for governing against the best interests of the country?
Thank you for addressing my three points. I am now content, and happy to see that we agree on so much.
You will find no statements from me calling advocates of democracy "thugs, goons, and the enemy." You shouldn't lump me in with people like Barack Obama who like to call their political opponents "enemies." Like you, I am a strong advocate for democracy and am very happy that our democratic process worked in November 2010 (and continues to work in the state of Wisconsin).
Dave, even though not directed at me, I'd like to take a shot at answering your questions to Just the Facts.
"Who hates union workers, and wants to strip their rights the most?"
Republicans do not hate union workers, although we are not fans of union leaders. I think Republicans are the only ones fighting for the rights of union workers today. For example, we support right to work laws that allow employees to opt-out of union membership; we support secret ballots for unionizing. There you go, two rights that Republicans are fighting for on behalf of union members.
"What are [Fascists, dictators, Soviet and Chinese Communists] afraid of most?"
I think this is an easy one: the American flag when carried by our military forces arrayed against them.
"Where are all the jobs created by the Bush tax cuts?"
First, my heart isn't really in this one because I don't argue that tax cuts by themselves create jobs, although there is a certain logic to reducing a business owner's tax bill, which frees up capital to grow the business and hire more people. But let's look at some data anyway.
If we look at Q4 2002 (the last quarter before all Bush tax cuts were in place), the percent of the population employed was 62.4%. At the end of 2006, the employed population had grown to 63.4%, or an increase of 3 million jobs (based on 300m Americans).
Next, Q4 2002 had a U3 unemployment rate of 6%. At the end of 2003 unemployment had fallen to 5.7%; end of 2004 it was 5.4%; end of 2005 it was 4.9%;end of 2006 it was 4.4%. If you want to draw the correlation (which I'm sure you don't), one could argue that the four years immediately following the complete implementation of the Bush tax cuts created 2.86 million jobs.
Perhaps you'd like to argue that the increase in unemployment in 2007 and 2008 negate these improvements, but on what basis? Are you really going to argue that the Bush tax cuts did not create jobs because there was a 5-year lag in the economic effects? That's quite a stretch.
My, were having much to say off topic aren’t we? As a ‘Brown Shirt” supporter, you must admit I’m quite tolerant.
1. The similarities fade when we compare your two examples.
Publicly announcing their hope for a president to fail, and their intentions to facilitate the failure of the democratically elected president by any and all means necessary by the Republicans is unprecedencted. Unprecedented unfilled appointments and judges, unprecedented filibusters, and such were enough.
But unprecedented silence from a party as supporters openly stirred antipathy, resentment and anger through Right Wing and corporate media with accusations about the president’s foreign birth and Muslim religion more than qualifies as an egregious assault on democracy. Add that to their friends and cronies of the Supreme Court handing the White House to Bush against the will of the people to begin with, would be an egregious assault on democracy. Add to that the long campaign of voter suppression, election tampering, voting machine rigging, and we see it is more than obvious which party commits the more egregious assaults on democracy.
2. Principles are often compromised through democracy for the greater good. I’m glad you say you’re an advocate of democracy, but your party does not indicate any such thing, except when they win an election. Your principles are adversarial towards democracy.
3. I’d be delighted if you really agree both Democrats and Republicans govern in the interests of their campaign contributors over the general public to the detriment of democracy. We want to fix that horrible defect that suffocates our freedom and prosperity. I don’t the Dark Side agrees with us.
Thank you for not calling advocates of democracy "thugs, goons, and the enemy." Would you please tell your union-hating friends to stop hating unions made up of good hard working Americans, and stop lying about them?
I must say you polished the turd to golden gleam...
I think Republicans are the only ones fighting for the rights of union workers today.
Who are we kidding?
As for your reply on the non-existent Bush tax cut jobs, thank you. Well done! That's um, quite a stretch, indeed. It was no stimulus.
Bush inherited Clinton’s 4.0% unemployment rate and then it jumped to 6%. It went down to 4.6 before taking its huge leap back up to 5.8 in 2008. The spike continued and the effects haunt us now.
Bush never got the rate down to what Clinton left him.
I would have to say those were job-killing tax cuts. And they continue to kill jobs.
You shouldn't accuse me of being off topic when I am replying to your comments.
Regarding unions, you conveniently dismiss the two examples I provided of union rights that Republicans are fighting for. I understand, you only see evidence that confirms your bias against the right.
Also unfair is to accuse Bush of ruining the inherited Clinton unemployment rate knowing that the internet bubble burst at the end of the Clinton administration, and we were attacked on 9/11/01.
If you cannot acknowledge that those two events would've equally hurt a Gore administration, you are intellectually dishonest. Let's measure Bush on what he did to recover from both events.
He did phenomenally well until Democrats took over congress in the election of 2006. Suspiciously, that's when unemployment started to rise and the economy began to slow.
Wait, by the new "Obama standard," bad economic news on Bush's watch is the fault of Bill Clinton.
Dave,
Thanks for nothing!
I expect an apology from you for inferring I was dodging answering your question. Now try to answer (and remember doing so) these.
With the very pro union President currently in the White House, how are the middle class doing? After how many trillions of dollars spent to stimulate our economy, how is the middle class doing?
After over 45 years of our "endless War on Poverty" and hundreds of trillions of dollars spent, why isn't it over? What is the exit plan for leaving the "endless" War on Poverty? Have liberal policy's and spending in the last 2 years made things better for Black Americans?
Which is larger a jump from 4.6% to 5.8% or 5.8% to 9.1% unemployment?
Bet you will dodge these questions by either calling me a troll or blaming the Tea Party.
Lets be clear here, the only jobs Government creates are government jobs. The more jobs Government creates, eventually the more Government will have to suck out of the economy to fund that by taxation. That hurts real, productive jobs by people who produce actual stuff because it's less capital they have.
I happen to be one of those Government blood suckers... and I think my job is a necessary evil. But the fact is we have a lot of Government employees who are unnecessary evils - and that's where cuts should be made. I for example am in the military, an individual person cannot defend America and that makes my job necessary. But the individual can feed himself, house himself, and pay for his individual needs. The problem is Government has taken on the responsibilities of the individual and corporation, and that is destroying our economy in many ways. We need a military, we need courts so problems can be settled peacefully and criminals can be punished or found not guilty. We need certain things to be regulated like the air space or water ways among others. But subsidies for private enterprise or individuals is not only foolish... it's economically suicidal long term. Our economic failure is a long time coming, and our chickens of the welfare state that the individual and corporation enjoy are coming home to roost every day.
As for unions, I don't have a problem with them in theory, only in practice. It's not "all unions" that are bad... but many have become redundant and corrupt. Reigning them in is a matter of good government - not anti labor. Unions that destroy companies and eat tax dollars by the truck load are not good for anyone, least of all the union membership. If your union contract puts your company out of business... what has the membership gained other than an unemployment check?
HR,
I have followed your distraction from the subject of the post. I allow that you did ask to debate policies. And I did. One “policy” you wish to distract from concerns the Tea Cult’s radical hate and the Republicans’ tacit support behind it.
It is not unfair to accuse Bush of failing to restore jobs. I blame Clinton for selling out the American worker and serving Wall Street interests as well. Bush went further and mangled things beyond repair. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 or any bubbles. There’s nothing dishonest to say Gore would likely to have not acted as recklessly and irresponsibly as Bush. Democracy was obstructed by a Republican court, so we’ll never know. Maybe Gore would have listened to Richard Clarke and prevented 9-11. Bush was too busy making the rich richer and dismissed warnings about al-Qaeda.
It’s also suspicious to suggest that Bush let congress run the country. They can obstruct a president, but they cannot issue executive orders or make laws without overriding a veto.
The Republicans’ historical pattern is clear. They have proven their contempt for democracy and embrace of plutocracy. They embrace a culture of hate and govern in the interests of the economic elites. Tyranny of the minority has always been their cause. Democracy is their foil and they do their utmost to undermine it.
---
JTF,
I apologize for overlooking your answer, but my issue with its evasive nature of my point about Republicans sharing hatred of unions with fascists and other authoritarian leadership stands.
You cannot expect a response to all of your trolling questions.
Free,
Lets be clear here, the only jobs Government creates are government jobs.
If nobody else creates jobs, then the government should do it. We have failing infrastructure and countless other needs. Government funded jobs are far better than no jobs.
Dave Dubya, you said...
"Maybe Gore would have listened to Richard Clarke and prevented 9-11. Bush was too busy making the rich richer and dismissed warnings about al-Qaeda."
And perhaps Gore would have dismissed ideas of creating our own version of the Reichstag fire, thus preventing an excuse to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation for the sole purpose of nation-building and colonialism.
Chevy Volt: Flagship Model Of The Government-Industrial Complex
If you build it, some might come.
President Obama recently reminded General Motors‘ stockholders, all 311 million of us, that he’s calling the shots at America’s largest automaker, when he told an audience in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, that freedom to market was the price for the bailout: “If we are going to help you [GM], then you have also got to change your ways.” And then he stated the ways: electric cars, and isn’t it great that jillions of taxpayer dollars are being thrown at battery manufacturers?
The Government-Industrial Complex (GIC) is at it again, picking energy technologies. Its track record is atrocious. Highly subsidized solar is in eclipse, as demonstrated by the recent bankruptcy of Evergreen Solar in Massachusetts. Try as it might, it can’t make wind energy a big player, largely because people hate it. And how much money has it lavished on Ethanol? This year we will burn up more corn than we will use as a feedstock, which has (and should have) appalled the world.
Nevermind that no one has figured out how to produce a comfortable electric car at an affordable (non-subsidized) price that has enough range to be practical for the most of us. And so GM’s answer is the Chevrolet Volt, which doesn’t suffer from range limitation because of its internal combustion engine, which works both as a generator and prime mover as the charge in 400 pounds of lithium ion batteries depletes.
Carrying a $41,000 base MSRP and a $7,500 tax break, the Volt is either going to be the biggest bust since the Edsel, or a niche car with very modest sales. It is not, repeat, not the wave of the future. It’s just too impractical for a large number of everyday drivers.
Cynics are springing handstands over the paltry sales of 125 units last month. GM responds that supply was very short because they had to retool the Hamtramck, Michigan Volt-a-drome so that it could amp production up to 5000 per month, with the expectation of 60,000 to be produced next year (15,000 for overseas delivery).
Publius,
not the wave of the future.
So you're the expert (or I should say your cut and paste) on the future? You guys are so full of BS, it's hysterical.
Electric cars will be a large part of the future, unles we find a better alternative.
No more trolling for you.
If nobody else creates jobs, then the government should do it.
Problem: Those jobs are paid for by private sector jobs. Communism clearly has proven when everyone works for the State it's only a matter of time before systemic failure. It's obvious the jobs that matter for a healthy economy are private sector jobs. The more government jobs there are, the more hits the private sector takes.
I'm all for roads and bridges as much as the next guy... the private sector needs those to function. That said... I'm not talking about cutting the DOT or the DOE or the Army Corps of Engineers.
I'm talking about entitlement reform, for the most part since that's where the majority of spending is. Also, there is room for cuts at the DOD... that said however DOD needs to reset BADLY after eleven years of conflict so any savings there would likely need to redirect within the agency. At least for a few years.
Government Industrial Complex.
LoL, that's fucking hilarious! And so TRUE!
Where was the warning about that one IKE!?
Free,
Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex. He apparently modified his final draft for some reason or another. We know how politicians avoid speaking certain truths.
And a Federal jobs program is not "communism".
"And a Federal jobs program is not "communism"."
Then WTF is it?
@Just,
And a Federal jobs program is not "communism"."
Then WTF is it?
Dictionary.com: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Glad to help, sir.
In communism you don't have hierarchies like governments. Everyone is of equal value and status.
Socialism is all about workers and jobs. A socialistic government provides services in return for taxes. So a federal jobs program would be socialistic, not communistic.
And here's why we need to keep cutting domestic programs that benefit the poor and middle class.
http://www.bloomberg.com/data-visualization/federal-reserve-emergency-lending#/overview/?sort=nomPeakValue&group=none&view=peak&position=0&comparelist=&search=
We're going to keep increasing welfare queen subsidies for the rich. There is no way away around it. So cuts have to be made everywhere else.
We're converting from a Socialistic republic to the Capitalistic Government that the Tea Party is fighting for.
In the new Capitalistic Government, politicians, legislation and government functions will all be for sale to the highest bidders. Law, Justice and Enforcement will be doled out according to ability to pay. and those getting $billion in free government money every quarter will of course, be able to afford to have more of these services tailored for them.
Wow! Everyone jumped in to help Just understand communism. It feels good to be in a community where we all help each other out.
Wease,
The Right would be happy with Capitalistic Government. It is their wet dream of a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
But as long as we have any vestiges of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, they will be whining, and ignorantly crying about communism and socialism. As seen above.
Weaseldog
Please if Communism is soooo wonderful explain the following.
U.S.S.R, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Burma, Vietnam, North Korea?
Yeah, you wouldn't live there. Nobody would by choice. Communism is misery, it killed 3 times as many people as Hitler, including plenty of my family members (I'm part Cuban and Czech and have family in both countries.)
I double dare you to go check out what it's like to live in China... and I don't mean Hong Kong I mean fuck'n China. You'd piss your pants after two days.
"We're going to keep increasing welfare queen subsidies for the rich. There is no way away around it. So cuts have to be made everywhere else."
Weasel, even if that nonsense was true... and it is not, your mindset is still quite telling.
Letting people, even the evil rich, keep more of THEIR own money that they earned is considered a subsidy to you and many on the left. Interesting...
John, your sarcasm wasn't lost on me. ;-)
Heathen said in regards to the Tea Party diminishing,
"Fun while it lasted."
Thanks to the Tea Party for wrecking the political and economic stability of the country.
Now, back to your mansions and fat bank accounts, no matter what happens to the country because of your fun dabbling in national affairs.
Tea Partiers remind me of the rich housewife who is not concerned, or cares, or even knows who and what it takes to pay the bills she racks up.
Of course, she has spent her children's inheritance, and is totally unaware of the damage she has caused
Tom,
We know the Tea Cult is not going anywhere. They are Republicans and have always been around. They just needed some cover because the Bush League tarnished the Republican Party. Now that Obama has been obsructed and demonized they can go back to waving their "Greedy Old Plutocrats", I mean GOP, flag.
Free0352, you said...
"Government Industrial Complex.
LoL, that's fucking hilarious! And so TRUE!"
I'm curious. Why the sudden epiphany when Publius coins the term "Government-Industrial-Complex", but when I (or Dave, or any "liberal") use the term "corporate-state" to describe the cozy relationship that has developed between big business and government, it's met with ridicule and scorn?
I think it's starting to sink in for you.
"Free,
Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex. He apparently modified his final draft for some reason or another. We know how politicians avoid speaking certain truths."
No Dave W. you have your wires crossed. The Military Industrial Complex and the Government Industrial Complex, where the gubmint tries to pick winners and losers, are not the same.
no soup for you!
Anonymous, or "P" for short,
"No" about what? Not the same "gubmint"... but the same corporatocracy?
No reality for you!
I only bother with one response per troll or anonymous comment.
You'll have to come up with a better name or identity if you want more attention. Be clever. We have no respect for unimaginative cowardly lurkers. Try Publius again. If the comment is relevant to the topic, we can all share your lame points, like my "crossed wires".
I think it's starting to sink in for you.
I've never suggested otherwise that corporations have a stake in our government.
We just disagree about what to do about it.
Liberals are fine with subsidizing companies that make solar panels or electric cars, but GOD FORBID they buy tanks!
free0352, you replied with...
"I've never suggested otherwise that corporations have a stake in our government."
Maybe, but I'm really not so sure.
Nonetheless, it's more than "a stake" that liberals (and increasingly, Americans of all political persuasions) are concerned about. The term "corporate-state" implies an implicit ownership of government and all its workings -- and becoming more explicit all the time.
That's the connection you seem to have the most trouble wrapping your head around.
"Dictionary.com: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."
So if you are a Federal employee, what part of the above does not apply to you?
BTW, what was defined above sounds a lot like a city who has been run by the democratic party for 50 years plus, like Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago.
I loved the post - but keep coming for more. Did the brown shirts get you?
Just,
"Dictionary.com: a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."
So if you are a Federal employee, what part of the above does not apply to you?
This is not a totalitarian state dominated by a single individual.
Also, I am not the only one helping you with some of the harder terms. A bunch of us replied, so you don't need to give me preferential treatment, although I am honored that you picked me, sir.
JM,
Sir,
The honor is ALWAYS mine, when I am in a discussion with you. You command my complete respect.
Thank you.
T.Paine and Obama fully support the bankers keeping all of the money they've earned in the subprime crisis.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-goes-all-out-for-dirty-banker-deal-20110824
T.Paine Here are some articles that explain how the banks continue to 'earn' essentially free money.
The scam is simple.
The banks borrow money from the Fed at nearly 0% interest. The taxpayer guarantees the loan. The bank then loans the money to the US Gov at a higher interest rate.
Previously, the US Gov borrowed directly from the Federal Reserve, but now the banks have been shimmed in.
Of course you could argue that they are making money by performing a service. A service that isn't needed, provides no value, and shifts the burden of repayment directly to the taxpayer.
T.Paine, I know that it's impossible to change your mind about this. No amount of evidence or proof can do that. But here are a few articles on the topic. I've tried to avoid using sources that might be interpreted as left leaning liberal.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/12/the-subsidy-that-won-t-die.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fed-does-it-again-80-billion-secretive-bank-subsidy-program-uncovered-providing-bank-loans-0
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies
Gee Weasledog
You mean it was not GW Bush's fault? But Obama's fault?
How has this effected Fanny and Freedy Mae?
That's the connection you seem to have the most trouble wrapping your head around.
No, you're not grasping something. Companies are controlled by PEOPLE. They are not faceless Borg from Star Trek.
You're just peeved because they happen to often be people you don't like.
free0352, you responded with...
"No, you're not grasping something. Companies are controlled by PEOPLE. They are not faceless Borg from Star Trek."
Using your same [il]logical premise, so is government.
What's your fucking point?
Govt is made up of people and takes away wealth from those who have wealth, companies create wealth for the people who make them up the company. IE: employees, stock holders, owners.
Govt takes from those just listed and gives to it's people while not creating any wealth for those who work for it.
There's the big difference.
If govt creates wealth, why then is there the need for private companies?
JG you said ". The term "corporate-state" implies an implicit ownership of government and all its workings -- and becoming more explicit all the time."
I see this happening as a result of govt. regulations of corporations, and govt lending money to corporations, which results, whether it was meant to or not, in control the business of the corporations by govt. I do not see this happening as the result of free market conservative capitalism.
Just The FOX(R),
Oh, to see the world from such sweet simplicity... No wonder you’re convinced you’re right about everything. It’s so simple. Only a stupid liberal could fail to understand. Thanks for the lesson.
So for simplicity’s sake, I can see how Big Oil serves the government by taking all those subsidies and tax breaks. I can see GE and other major corporations paying no taxes at all because the government owns them. Yes I can. I can also see how pharmaceutical companies suffer under the boot heel of Big Government by their lobbyists writing legislation that prohibits Medicare price negotiations. And woe to the frail and struggling Insurance companies. Whatever shall they do for all the money flowing into them, thanks to a corporate friendly health care law?
And for simplicity’s sake, we can report Wall Street is now under the total control of Obama. Yes, I can see this. The bailouts have allowed Obama to write restrictive regulations for Wall Street, put an end to “too big to fail” banks, fire and jail everybody responsible for the ’08 collapse, and above all, make sure nobody got those huge bonuses to flaunt in the taxpayers’ faces for being suckers for the Great Scam.
Yeah, I can see all this, if I keep hitting my head with a baseball bat long enough.
"I can see how Big Oil serves the government by taking all those subsidies and tax breaks"
What do you think they do with the money from all those big tax breaks?
"I can see GE and other major corporations paying no taxes at all because the government owns them."
And what's your point, it's the current liberal administration who is doing this.
"And woe to the frail and struggling Insurance companies."
Deregulate them and allow the consumer to buy across state lines and we will see how much insurance companies rates drop.
"And for simplicity’s sake, we can report Wall Street is now under the total control of Obama."
If not under Obama's control certainly under his influence, not how stocks dropped when he spoke twp weeks ago?
BTW, isn't if odd how the current liberal administration is now running the home mortgage lending industry and the student loan industry. How health care will be a govt. enterprise by 2015 unless a changes stops it in 2012?
But for simplicity sake, lets ignore that and focus on the EVIL RICH WHO ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH TAXES..
So my questions dear Sir. will you know answer them?
If govt creates wealth, why then is there the need for private companies?
Just The FOX(R),
You just don't get it. Answering your questions will not help you get it. It would be like explaining a joke to someone without a sense of humor. My point is clear enough to anyone not indoctrinated and blinded by the simplistic beliefs of the radical Right.
Sorry I can't help you. Only an open mind will do it for you.
Dave, maybe it's word verification time...again.
Post a Comment