Well, you should just stop voting, then. Since it's so hopeless, an all.
Nice try, PureX! You were the one who declaimed that big corporations owned both major political parties. You were the one who implied the hopelessness of the system as it is. All I did was take your argument to its logical conclusion.
Nice try, PureX! You were the one who declaimed that big corporations owned both major political parties. You were the one who implied the hopelessness of the system as it is. All I did was take your argument to its logical conclusion.
Ergo, I'm the one who should stop voting?
You're just way too clever for me Frank! I will now have to go and hide in my shame.
Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
On the GOP side
it is Romney vs Perry vs Cain
On the Dem side
it is Obama vs nobody
Paraphrase of a Rudy Giuliani quote delivered at a meeting of Long Island business executives on 10/11/2011 who there confirmed that he is not running for Presidency in 2012.
'Perry has the heart of the GOP electorate while Romney has the head."
Location: Matrix, or Indiana, what's the difference?
Rep Power: 41465
Christian
More left than right
Slogan/motto:
Being a slave to Christ is freedom, and being free from Christ is slavery (to the world).
Reputation:
October 14th, 2011, 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
This is why President Obama will likely win a second term:
As long as the democrats present the facts to the public about who got us into this mess, and how, the facts themselves will expose the republican platform as absurdly dishonest and hypocritical. And when the republican candidate (whoever it is) continues to spout off all the same tired lies that they have been spouting off since Reagan, the public is going to hear the shallow ring of corporate propaganda in every word.
The truth is that the huge deficit was not an accident; it was a strategy developed and implemented about 30 years ago by the Reagan administration (its roots can actually be traced back to other sources like the John Birch Society). It became known as the "starve the beast" strategy (go ahead and Google it and make sure to look at multiple results). It was publicly proposed as simply a strategy of cutting taxes to force Congress to cut spending, but ultimately the designers had different motives. Former Merrill Lynch CEO, Donald Regan, became Reagan's Treasury Secretary, and later moved into Reagan's Chief of Staff position.
Regan endorsed this strategy (originally named Reaganomics, but referred to as voodoo economics by opponents), and the underlying motive in pushing it was to ultimately end the popular "third-rail" programs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. It was understood that overt attemts to tamper with them were political suicide, so a plan was engineered to create a fiscal crisis in order to gain support for such changes. It was believed that if deficits were run up high enough then people would accept the destruction of our national safety net. It was well understood from the beginning that cutting taxes would not restrict Congressional spending, and that Congress would only borrow to replace the lost revenues creating deficits. In fact, Reagan later when confronted about the deficits said that some deficits were good. The other part of this strategy was to actually increase spending to accelerate the process. Military spending soared during the Reagan years. What happened later in Reagan's tenure was that he began to see the danger of this plan and began allowing some tax increases, drawing fire from some on the far right.
Yet the strategy was set in motion. From that time until now the same sales pitch has been trumpeted daily to brainwash as many as would possible. Lines such as, "Government IS the problem", "Cutting taxes will increase revenues", "Tax-and-spend liberals", "We're the party of fiscal responsibility", "Young people will never see their Social Security", "Social programs are the cause of our deficits", "Taxes are bad", "Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate", and on and on. These lines are all engineered to reinforce the "starve the beast" strategy.
George H. W. Bush continued somewhat along the lines of the final Reagan year or two by allowing a few more tax increases, in spite of much opposition from his own party, and it cost him a primary battle that led to his loss in '92. Bill Clinton, with all his flaws, reversed much of the disasterous Reaganomics, trickle-down policy, and left office after having balanced the budget with a pay-as-you-go policy, brought up revenues to a fair level, and even built up a surplus.
The following eight years brought us to where we are today. George W. Bush believed that Reagan, and even his father, wimped out by not following through on the starve the beast plan to its ultimate end. He entered a tax-cutting spree while simultaneously proposing numerous unfunded programs and budget hikes sending spending through the roof. The surpluses of the Clinton years were turned into deficits in less than two years. Yet he was not deterred even after initiating two expensive wars. He continued pushing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, spending on some of the most costly programs ever designed and slashing or refusing to enforce financial and business regulations until the inevitable occurred, the economy tanked.
And then came along Obama. Having created the crisis they desired, and having won control of the House in 2010, the far-right of the Republican Party saw the opportunity to pull the trigger on their plan, blaming the crisis on the new President. Blocking any legislation that might improve the economy or create jobs, they began their big push to cut social programs in the name of "fiscal crisis". They not only refuse to accept any return to a respectable tax rate to correct the crisis, they push for even lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans. While claiming they will not raise any taxes, they propose "adjusting" the rates so that the burden will be shifted to the poorest and most vulnerable of society. Claiming "class warfare" whenever the idea of raising taxes on the wealthiest comes up, they engage in class warfare by trying to redistribute funds though these tax rate adjustment schemes. And that is all that the "flat tax", and the 9-9-9 plans are, a way of shifting tax burdens from the excesses of the wealthiest and replacing them with money now used for to buy food, housing and health care by the lower and lower-middle class. In other words, they want to take food out of the mouths of the poor and elderly to further increase their stored wealth.
And Rupert Murdoch's propaganda outlets tell us that the people occupying Wall Street, and other venues, don't know what they want. It all comes down to Government, whether national, state or local, is controlled by wealth to legitimize their stealing from the poor, and whenever a nation's wealth becomes too top heavy, wealth is ultimately trumped by numbers.
Anyone who manages a household or small business understands that if you're keeping your head above water, and then your income is cut, something's gotta give. Those same individuals would say that it's common sense that if you both have your income cut, and increase your spending, you have to borrow to make it happen and disaster is imminent. Anyone who does this intentionally is a fool, unless they have a plan to make someone else pay for their folly, then they are criminals. But when a few can convince the masses that cutting government revenues and increasing government spending will somehow eventually increase government revenues because of increased productivity it is called brainwashing. I know it is hard to accept because it means that you must admit to being a dupe.
"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
"The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker."
Slogan/motto:
For as much as it depends on you, live at peace with others.
Reputation:
October 14th, 2011, 11:01 AM
The president has nothing to do with the debt... look at who controls congress. When democrats control congress the debt gets out of hand.. when republicans control the congress, debt goes down or stays the same
Location: Matrix, or Indiana, what's the difference?
Rep Power: 41465
Christian
More left than right
Slogan/motto:
Being a slave to Christ is freedom, and being free from Christ is slavery (to the world).
Reputation:
October 16th, 2011, 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisServant
The president has nothing to do with the debt... look at who controls congress. When democrats control congress the debt gets out of hand.. when republicans control the congress, debt goes down or stays the same
That's easy to say when it's convenient, but it's overly simplistic. The concept of Reaganomics, or as I pointed out earlier also referred to as "starve the beast", has defined Republican orthodoxy since its introduction. Reagan's party fell in line behind him, and has defended this abomination ever since, making it's goal of destroying Social Security, Medicare and all other social programs the party's ultimate objective. So technically the President doesn't control the purse-strings; but in reality he regularly controls his party.
Having said that, I believe that Reagan was chosen by his party, or should I say Wall Street, because of his job experience as an ad-man. He "sold" a dangerous, destructive economic plan the same way he sold cigarettes. His Wall Street handlers managed him well.
"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities."
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
"The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker."
That said, I think Obama's floundering. Outlook not so good.
Why is he floundering?
*Because he is inexperienced in private sector wealth building?
*Because his core philosophy is inadequate to solve free market economics?
*Because people are no longer mystified by his rhetoric?
or something else?
That's easy to say when it's convenient, but it's overly simplistic. The concept of Reaganomics, or as I pointed out earlier also referred to as "starve the beast", has defined Republican orthodoxy since its introduction. Reagan's party fell in line behind him, and has defended this abomination ever since, making it's goal of destroying Social Security, Medicare and all other social programs the party's ultimate objective. So technically the President doesn't control the purse-strings; but in reality he regularly controls his party.
Let's take just one point, the destruction of S.S. or Medicare. Would you be against the idea of 'opt in' rather than automatic 'no choice' enrollment?
Why is he floundering?
*Because he is inexperienced in private sector wealth building?
*Because his core philosophy is inadequate to solve free market economics?
*Because people are no longer mystified by his rhetoric?
or something else?
Several reasons.
1. When he had a democratic majority, he didn't kick his own party legislators in the butt and make them enact the reforms he knew were needed. Big mistake! Result: he didn't make the kinds of changes we needed to begin a real recovery.
2. He kept trying to compromise with republicans when the republicans had no intention of compromising with him on anything. Big waste of time. Result: he couldn't make the kinds of changes we needed to begin a real recovery.
But when a few can convince the masses that cutting government revenues and increasing government spending will somehow eventually increase government revenues because of increased productivity it is called brainwashing. I know it is hard to accept because it means that you must admit to being a dupe.
Kennedy and Reagan did it and showed that it works. Oh. Government revenue don't increase because of increased productivity, they increase because the tax base expands.
So, when are you going to admit to being a brainwashed dupe?
Linear Mode
