Thread: The republican party, is a corporate think tank controled, propaganda group/ cult.

The last thing I want to do, is hurt any republican, that uses this forum. I am sorry.


I am not the first person to say "the republican party is a cult", European writers have said it, long before I comprehended it.

Also, there are American college professors, that classify the republican party as a propaganda group.



I learned all these things from Freespeach and LinkTV on DishSatalite.




Fox news and Rush radio are not real news broadcasts, they are actually sneaky corporate publicity comercials.

A huge percentage of the things that Fox news, Rush radio, and republican politicians say, are phrases that were created in corporate think tanks.


A corporate think tank is a group of people that are paid by a corporation. Their job is to create ideas and (phrases) that will make their corporation more money. And also make that corporation look good in the eyes of the public.


These think tanks literally send phrases in emails, to Fox news, Rush radio, and certain republican politicians.

These emails instruct Fox reporters, Rush radio disk jockeys, and certain republican politians, to repeate these (phrases) on their tv and radio shows, and in their public speeches.





( And after the above group of republicans, say the phrases a few times, the rest of the republicans start repeating them. )


These think tank created phrases then become a republicans political ideals and values. Many of a republicans actuall thought processes, are groups of phrases, that were created inside of corporate think tanks.





The following are a few phrases that were created in corporate think tanks.

Fox news, Rush radio, and republican politicians have repeated these phrases 1,000's of times.


Note: All the following think tank created phrases, are (lies) and (un-true), according to the scientific and economic community's.

tax cuts increase government revenues
large corporations are forced to pay too much money in taxes (the USA has the 2nd lowest -actuall- corp. tax rate in the world.)
the rich are forced to pay too much money in taxes (Warren Buffets tax rate is 17%, regular americans have a 30% tax rate)
socialism always leads to communism
high min. wage laws hurt the poor
global warming is not happening
the democrats will lead America to communism
democrats medical bills will cause you to get worse medical care
global warming laws will destroy America



There are 100's/1,000's more, and they are all lies.



There are also, many more think tank created phrases, that are much more complex.

such as "we want government out of our lives" , "we need smaller government" and "business regulations are hurting America".







These think tanks also create negative phrases about democrat politicians.

The reason corporate think tanks create these phrases, is because the democrats raise taxes on large corporations, and cause them to make less money.

Here are some examples,

Bill Clinton is placing un-fair taxes on the rich
Bill Clinton wants to punish the rich
Bill Clintons taxes on corporations will hurt America
Crazy Al Gore said that he invented the internet
Obama is a secret muslim
Obama is not a legal US citezen
Obama hates white people
Obama is a socialist, and socialism always leads to communism
Bernie Sanders is a communist






These corporate think tanks also create phrases to attack democrat bills in congress, that would cause their corporations to make less money.

Example,

If a corporate insurance company does not like a bill in congress, because it will decrease their profits, they tell their think tank to create phrases, that will make that bill seem bad to the American people. Then they send the emails with the phrases to Fox news and Rush radio, and they then say the phrases, on their tv and radio shows, and in their public speaches.


Examples,

"this bill will cause you to get worse medical care"
"this bill is socialism, and socialism leads to communism"
"this bill will take away your mothers doctor"
"this bill will hurt America"

They do this for any bill in congress that republican corporations dont like.







The following is another example of how corporate think tanks can get phrases into the republican, (and the general American population.)

I think I heard the following from one of Greenpeaces chairman, on FreespeechTV.

note: Global warming laws in congress, if passed would cause ExxonMobile to make less money.


A while back one of ExxonMobiles think tank work crews, did not like the way "global warming" sounded, the think tank workers thought "climate change" would sound less threating to the the American public.

The think tank then instructed Fox news, Rush radio, and certain republican politicians, to say "climate change" in their news shows and public speaches, rather than "global warming."

I personally think it worked very well, I even hear scientists on tv using the new term.



ExxonMobiles think tanks, also instruct the same above people to say the following phrases.


"Global warming may not be happening"
"Global warming is not happening"
"Climate change laws, will cause huge job losses in America"
"The Earths climate changed 150,000 years ago, so climate change is a natural thing"

The last one above is complex, and sneaky.





Everyday republicans believe that their Fox news reporters, Rush radio jocks, and republican politicians are just like them. And they have faith and trust in these people.

But these Fox reporters, Rush radio jocks, and republican politicians are different than your avarage everyday republican, because these people have (millions) of dollars in their bank account, that they got from doing large corporations favors.


The following statement has a source (source: Fear and favor in the news room.)

All of our major TV networks, will not allow infomation like this, on their news broadcasts.

Why, (in the cold hard trueth) ?

Because the republicans have given tv station owners, $100's of billions of dollars of tax cuts in the last 25 years. (And when some one gives you (billions) of dollars, you do not say anything bad about them.)


What do these corporate think tanks want ? They want low taxes for Americas rich, low taxes for large corporations, and no regulations on large corporations.




The corporate think tank workers are like telamarketers (in a way), they are like the people that would create a telamarketers sales pitch.


I saw a former health insurance think tank worker, on the dvd "Billionaires Tea Party".

This think tank worker said that, (he knew that he was manipulating people). And this particular think tank worker felt guilty for it, and spoke about it in the film.


How complex is this phrase manipulating group of republican think tank workers ?

The phrases "we want government out of our lives" , "the Earths climate changed 150,000 years ago, so climate change is a natural thing", and their multi-level talk of "big government" are very complex.

There could be a few think tank workers (getting paid big $$ money) and they could be running a (very) complex manipulation mechanism.


According to Bernie Sanders, certain republicans have a secret daily meeting to decide what phrases Fox news, Rush radio, and certain republican politicians will repeate that day to the public.

Bernie Sanders noticed how republicans at Fox news, Rush radio, and republicans on the Senate floor, would all say the (exact) same phrase, on the (exact) same day.


These think tanks also create emails (some of them with religous themes).

These emails get into the general population, and regular everyday republicans end up forwarding these emails to each other.


(the following is a full example)

When you open these (think tank) religous emails, they start to play relaxing clasical music, while they tell you to pray, and watch the screen.

Then the following phrases appear on the computer screen,

we are all good christian people
we all need to pray together
imagin everyone in America praying together
our curent president (Obama) is against prayer (think tank phrase)
our president (Obama) refuses to pray in public meetings (think tank phrase)
our country is headed down a destuctive path (think tank phrase)
let us pray
let everyone pray
this is a time for prayer
this is a time for the prayers and the philosopys of Ronald Reagan (think tank phrase)
let everyone pray, let us all pray together

A very dis-honest person (or) group of people, created the above email. They are putting people into a state of prayer, then they run their (phrases) on the screen. (NOT GOOD !!!)

edit: I just realized that a regular US republican could have made this email, still they are all think tank created phrases, and all lies and un-true.

Parts of republican culture worship Ronald Reagan as a God, because he was the president who started the "trickle down" tax cuts for these large corportions, and Americas rich.


This is only the tip of the iceberg, of what these think tanks are having Fox news, Rush radio, and republican politicians (do), and say to the American public.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, of what they are doing.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, of what they are doing.



I would not know any of these things, if I did not get freespeachTV and LinkTV on dish satalite. These TV stations have about 20 documentorys that every American needs to see.

(continued bellow.)

The following is on a personal level.


Some one or some group needs to fully expose, and destroy, this American republican corporate think tank manipulation machine.



I believe its possible that only a (very small %) of the people in this forum, will be capable of understanding how totally un-acceptable the above is, and have the mental power to care, and do something about it.

If you are a forum member who is able to understand this, and understands how un-acceptable this is, maybe you could do the following.


Edit or re-write this post, or one of my other (political) posts. Re-write them in a way, that would allow more people, to understand and care about this.


I believe (maybe) the best way to expose this, is to make a few republicans understand how un-acceptable this is.

If just a few republicans understood this, they may be able to bring this to other republicans attention, better than 100,000 democrat lefties could.

In our current Corrupt civilization, Media in general is PROPAGANDA, and politics is a sham from a certain perspective (corrupt crook oligarch puppet that sounds good vs batshit corrupt crook oligarch puppet that sounds insane).You might like video called Mouseland on Youtube.

Chad,
Do you remember Bill Clinton`s " Strong Moral Compass "

Rush: Bill "Clinton's Moral Compass Was Prone To Pointing Toward The Best Female Target In The Room" | Media Matters for America

I am certain, that you will also remember, Monica Lewinsky.

Lewinsky scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, sure, the Reagan Revolution was a cult takeover backed by corporate wealth. That's how fascism works. And cows eat grass, pretty much.


That's kind of in the realm of normal politics, in the sense that the only normal people are the ones you don't know very well. No need to get all excited - we used to have to deal with the Klan, in this country. People like Reggie Vanderbilt, or Joseph McCarthy.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Chad,
Do you remember Bill Clinton`s " Strong Moral Compass "

Rush: Bill "Clinton's Moral Compass Was Prone To Pointing Toward The Best Female Target In The Room" | Media Matters for America

I am certain, that you will also remember, Monica Lewinsky.

Lewinsky scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you'd prefer to vote for a fascist rather than a philanderer? One guy will take away your freedoms and gut your economy (giving most of the wealth to his cronies.) The other is unfaithful to his wife, which puts him in the same condition as 22% of the population of married American men whom he presides over.

Infidelity Statistics

Cause ya know...the evil Republicans have all the big money...

Ow wait!

1	Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)	R	$156,050,022	$303,575,011	$451,100,000
2	Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)	D	$182,755,534	$238,812,296	$294,869,059
3	Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)	D	$65,692,210	$174,385,102	$283,077,995
4	Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)	D	$36,694,140	$160,909,068	$285,123,996
5	Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)	D	$89,358,027	$160,302,011	$231,245,995
6	Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.)	R	-$69,434,661	$148,373,160	$366,180,982
7	Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)	R	$73,685,086	$137,611,043	$201,537,000
8	Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)	R	$38,936,114	$109,034,052	$179,131,990
9	Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)	D	$61,446,018	$98,832,010	$136,218,002
10	Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)	D	$64,210,256	$94,870,116	$125,529,976
11	Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)	D	$46,055,250	$77,082,134	$108,109,018
12	Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)	D	$49,083,204	$76,886,611	$104,690,018
13	Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)	D	-$7,356,915	$58,436,537	$124,229,990
14	Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.)	R	$19,365,053	$51,833,526	$84,302,000
15	Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)	R	$9,778,047	$50,717,522	$91,656,998
16	Rep. Diane Lynn Black (R-Tenn.)	R	$14,673,049	$49,409,519	$84,145,990
17	Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)	R	$19,898,179	$43,797,589	$67,697,000
18	Rep. Richard Berg (R-N.D.)	R	$19,347,579	$39,164,515	$58,981,451
19	Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)	D	$14,900,036	$39,012,518	$63,125,000
20	Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)	R	$13,303,385	$38,204,868	$63,106,351

Congressional Millionaires To Weigh Obama's Proposed 'Buffett Rule' - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Personal income isn't what counts in politics. It's the size of your campaign fund.

It is good that you point out, however, that most republicans aren't personally greedy, like wanting mansions or etc. It's just that they allow themselves to be puppets in the hands of other people who are quite personally greedy. (Most of whom probably don't have strong political affiliations, outside of their campaign contributions.)

Does standing back and letting a third party decide everything make someone innocent of the decision that ultimately gets made?

It certainly counts and rich candidates often spend millions of their own cash to get elected.



But reaching further out, both sides are well financed by huge organizations, thus far the Democrats retaining a narrow lead.
Democrats Outspend Republicans on Campaigns - NYTimes.com

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Chad,
Do you remember Bill Clinton`s " Strong Moral Compass "

Rush: Bill "Clinton's Moral Compass Was Prone To Pointing Toward The Best Female Target In The Room" | Media Matters for America

I am certain, that you will also remember, Monica Lewinsky.

Lewinsky scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you'd prefer to vote for a fascist rather than a philanderer? One guy will take away your freedoms and gut your economy (giving most of the wealth to his cronies.) The other is unfaithful to his wife, which puts him in the same condition as 22% of the population of married American men whom he presides over.

Infidelity Statistics

Who's Fascist Now.

Ronald Reagan said this,
" Back during his 1976 campaign for president, Ronald Reagan made the offhand comment to Time that "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." When Reagan finally grasped the Republican nomination in 1980, Democrats gleefully retrieved that remark to use as proof of Reagan's supposed extremism. The media dutifully obliged, pressing Reagan on what he could possibly have meant with such an odd and inflammatory comment. "

Have a read of this link, it may surprise you.

http://www.aei.org/article/society-a...s-fascist-now/

Originally Posted by lynx

Posts3,130
February 14th, 2012, 05:11 PM It certainly counts and rich candidates often spend millions of their own cash to get elected.


But reaching further out, both sides are well financed by huge organizations, thus far the Democrats retaining a narrow lead.

According to your link, the Republican Party is collecting much more money from wealthy "organizations" than the Democratic Party, and enjoys a large advantage in campaign financing overall.

In addition, the Dem "organizations" tend to be fronts for large groups of people - the money comes from large numbers of more or less ordinary citizens - where the Rep "organizations" tend to be fronts for a small number of wealthy individuals and accumulations of capital. This may have some relevance to the concept of "democracy" as it applies to campaigns for public office, and so forth.

Or are we supposed to be pretending that the superpacs are not partisan?

Originally Posted by Dave"

Have a read of this link, it may surprise you.

http://www.aei.org/article/society-a...s-fascist-now/

The link is to an unclean favorable review of the incompetent Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism",a book in which said inimitable Goldberg argues that government regulation and control of private business was Mussolini's characteristic innovation and the foundation of fascism, adopted as such by Roosevelt's brain trust and the basis of modern "liberal" ideology.

It's not made clear whether Reagan was trying to smear Roosevelt, originally, or rehabilitate the image of fascism in discussion to accompany his reinstatement of it in government.

I looks like the Democrats got a lot of their economic ideas from fascism.

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economic policies

Further information: Economics of fascism
Fascists promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and Bolshevism.^[230] Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers, and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.^[231]

Managing the economy at the national level. Yep. Democrats do that.

Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed "national corporatism", "national socialism" or "national syndicalism".^[38] The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.^[232]

According to Bruce Pauley, Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalize it.^[233]

Exercising control over property without nationalizing it. Democrat idea.

However, according to Patricia Knight, they did, with the Italian Fascist government coming to own the highest percentage of industries outside the Soviet Union.^[234] The Nazis also nationalized some business.^[235] In fact, the "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the Nazi party, adopted in 1920, demanded "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations."^[236]

This iis what Democrats want.

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.^[237] Attempts were made by both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to establish "autarky" (self-sufficiency) through significant economic planning, but neither achieved economic self-sufficiency.^[238]

Yep. Democrats want to plan the economy.

Originally Posted by harold

Managing the economy at the national level. Yep. Democrats do that.

So do Republicans. So do Thatcherites, Gaullists, Stalinists, Maoists, whatever the Japanese industrial ideologues call themselves, Socialists, Communists, and Capitalists.

Originally Posted by harold

Exercising control over property without nationalizing it. Democrat idea.

Also known as "private property". Usually, Democrats don't get the credit for that one.

Originally Posted by :"harold"

The Nazis also nationalized some business.^[235] In fact, the "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the Nazi party, adopted in 1920, demanded "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations."^[236]

You have bolded a part where the Nazis and the Democrats are on opposite sides of a major issue.

You also quote a couple of other such Dem-opposing aspects of Nazi fascism, such as:

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.

Why?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by harold

Managing the economy at the national level. Yep. Democrats do that.

So do Republicans. So do Thatcherites, Gaullists, Stalinists, Maoists, whatever the Japanese industrial ideologues call themselves, Socialists, Communists, and Capitalists.

Incorrect. Republicans favor a free economy.

Originally Posted by harold

Exercising control over property without nationalizing it. Democrat idea.

Also known as "private property". Usually, Democrats don't get the credit for that one.

Government takeover of private property? I'll give them credit for that.

Originally Posted by :"harold"

The Nazis also nationalized some business.^[235] In fact, the "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the Nazi party, adopted in 1920, demanded "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations."^[236]

You have bolded a part where the Nazis and the Democrats are on opposite sides of a major issue.

Wrong. Democrats want to nationalize business, like taking over GM. They also don't like corporations.

You also quote a couple of other such Dem-opposing aspects of Nazi fascism, such as:

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.

Why?

No, I think this is a democrat idea. Strengthen state power by issuing more regulations and increasing taxes to take over more and more of the economy. Spreading ideology such as forcing Catholics to provide birth control. They perform the function of a state or party controlled trade union by means of labor regulations.

Originally Posted by harold

Incorrect. Republicans favor a free economy.

The Republicans that actually exist and hold office favor managing the economy at the national level. They favor, for example, national systems of freeways and railroad tracks and airports and import/export regulations, a Federal central bank, abolishing the current State boundaries on medical insurance company licensure, a Federal currency and monetary system, and so forth.

All that is part of having a prosperous industrial economy, and Republicans favor that. The current crop of Republicans has no idea how to go about handling these responsibilities, maybe, but then cultists and the propaganda addled govern poorly as a rule. It doesn't mean they are completely bereft of connection to reality, at least in the ways - roads, airports - they can see and touch in their daily lives.

Originally Posted by harold

Exercising control over property without nationalizing it. Democrat idea.


Also known as "private property". Usually, Democrats don't get the credit for that one.

Government takeover of private property?

No. Government establishment - i.e. regulation and control - of legally enforced and titled private property. Reps favor that as well, but you give credit to Dems for founding the idea - which was and is a liberal one, of course, but not necessarily Dem really.

Originally Posted by harold

Wrong. Democrats want to nationalize business, like taking over GM.

GM was not nationalized - the government did not even buy voting stock, or seat a government official on the board. And the bailout was a Rep idea - W handed GM billions in unsecured loans just before leaving office, which among other factors put the US taxpayer on the hook to keep GM afloat and get their money back. Which Dems are you talking about, and which businesses?

Originally Posted by harold

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.

- I think this is a democrat idea.

It isn't. No Dem has even argued for, let alone proposed or attempted, consolidating trade unions under State or Party control.

It's been the other way around, in the US - the trade unions consolidating themselves to get control of the State, enabled by their allies in the Dem Party. They failed.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by harold

Managing the economy at the national level. Yep. Democrats do that.

So do Republicans. So do Thatcherites, Gaullists, Stalinists, Maoists, whatever the Japanese industrial ideologues call themselves, Socialists, Communists, and Capitalists.

Incorrect. Republicans favor a free economy.

Right. They favor the government paying for it, and the individual choosing. See something wrong with that? If the government pays for it, the government has the right to choose. It's like late teenager hitting their parents up for money to buy a nice apartment and then simultaneously telling them to butt out of their life. Which is it? Pay for the apartment, or butt out?

Originally Posted by harold

Exercising control over property without nationalizing it. Democrat idea.

Also known as "private property". Usually, Democrats don't get the credit for that one.

Government takeover of private property? I'll give them credit for that.

You mean government buying a worthless asset, rather than letting the market decide that it's worthless so the owner gets nothing for it?

Remember, this takeover is all happening by way of just compensation. Nobody is being cheated here. Quite the opposite. The owner privately owned an asset previously, and now privately owns money more than equivalent to that asset.

Originally Posted by :"harold"

The Nazis also nationalized some business.^[235] In fact, the "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the Nazi party, adopted in 1920, demanded "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations."^[236]

You have bolded a part where the Nazis and the Democrats are on opposite sides of a major issue.

Wrong. Democrats want to nationalize business, like taking over GM. They also don't like corporations.

You're right about the second part.

As for the first part, the choices right now are:

1) - Bail them out , but then leave the business in the hands of the managers who already drove it to fail so they can pay themselves bonuses with the money.

2) - Bail them out, and take over some measure of control.

3) - Don't bail them out.

None of them are good options, and everyone agrees about that. Democrats agree about that. However, option #2 is the least evil of the available evils.

You also quote a couple of other such Dem-opposing aspects of Nazi fascism, such as:

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.

Why?

No, I think this is a democrat idea. Strengthen state power by issuing more regulations and increasing taxes to take over more and more of the economy. Spreading ideology such as forcing Catholics to provide birth control. They perform the function of a state or party controlled trade union by means of labor regulations.

You think deregulation was better? Republicans insist on spending like children in a candy store..... or rather a toy store. They think we can afford any war they can dream up, and will likely try to get us to invade Iran soon. And then the democrats come along like a stuffy old parent, and suggest that, .... if we're going to spend so much money ........... we might need to tax the people to get it. Y'know... just saying. Damn those liberals for taking the republicans' great big make-believe ideas and trying to dial them into reality!!!!

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.^[237] Attempts were made by both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to establish "autarky" (self-sufficiency) through significant economic planning, but neither achieved economic self-sufficiency.^[238]

Yep. Democrats want to plan the economy.

How's the saying go? If you fail to plan, you plan to fail? Some parts of the new deal unequivocably proved themselves to be effective economic tools. Before regulation on agriculture, farmers were simply growing whatever product had sold for the highest price the previous year. Which... unfortunately meant they all grew the same thing leading to a massive oversupply, and bottoming out the price. Some coordination was clearly in order. One problem with a pure free market is that sometimes the feedback to sellers lags behind the decision making processes too far to be of any real value. Some pre-planning can fix that.

A successful economy based on totally uncoordinated freedom is a wonderfully inspiring ideal. It should make anyone feel all starry eyed. But there's a reason for the stars. It's just like the Socialist Wellfare state. Both of them are beautiful dreams that can only exist in a world of pure fantasy. If I'm required to vote for one absurdity as the only means of opposing the other, ...... I think I'll just waste my vote and cast it for an independent. (It would be wasted anyway.)

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by harold

Managing the economy at the national level. Yep. Democrats do that.

So do Republicans. So do Thatcherites, Gaullists, Stalinists, Maoists, whatever the Japanese industrial ideologues call themselves, Socialists, Communists, and Capitalists.

Incorrect. Republicans favor a free economy.

Right. They favor the government paying for it, and the individual choosing.

No, wrong. It's the dems who want the government paying for everything.

See something wrong with that? If the government pays for it, the government has the right to choose. It's like late teenager hitting their parents up for money to buy a nice apartment and then simultaneously telling them to butt out of their life. Which is it? Pay for the apartment, or butt out?

Originally Posted by harold

Exercising control over property without nationalizing it. Democrat idea.

Also known as "private property". Usually, Democrats don't get the credit for that one.

Government takeover of private property? I'll give them credit for that.

You mean government buying a worthless asset, rather than letting the market decide that it's worthless so the owner gets nothing for it?

Remember, this takeover is all happening by way of just compensation. Nobody is being cheated here. Quite the opposite. The owner privately owned an asset previously, and now privately owns money more than equivalent to that asset.

Why not just leave it alone and don't do the takeover?

Originally Posted by :"harold"

The Nazis also nationalized some business.^[235] In fact, the "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the Nazi party, adopted in 1920, demanded "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations."^[236]

You have bolded a part where the Nazis and the Democrats are on opposite sides of a major issue.

Wrong. Democrats want to nationalize business, like taking over GM. They also don't like corporations.

You're right about the second part.

As for the first part, the choices right now are:

1) - Bail them out , but then leave the business in the hands of the managers who already drove it to fail so they can pay themselves bonuses with the money.

2) - Bail them out, and take over some measure of control.

3) - Don't bail them out.

None of them are good options, and everyone agrees about that. Democrats agree about that. However, option #2 is the least evil of the available evils.

Says you. And the fascists.

You also quote a couple of other such Dem-opposing aspects of Nazi fascism, such as:

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.

Why?

No, I think this is a democrat idea. Strengthen state power by issuing more regulations and increasing taxes to take over more and more of the economy. Spreading ideology such as forcing Catholics to provide birth control. They perform the function of a state or party controlled trade union by means of labor regulations.

You think deregulation was better? Republicans insist on spending like children in a candy store..... or rather a toy store. They think we can afford any war they can dream up, and will likely try to get us to invade Iran soon. And then the democrats come along like a stuffy old parent, and suggest that, .... if we're going to spend so much money ........... we might need to tax the people to get it. Y'know... just saying. Damn those liberals for taking the republicans' great big make-believe ideas and trying to dial them into reality!!!!

Fiscally responsible democrats. That's a unique view.

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.^[237] Attempts were made by both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to establish "autarky" (self-sufficiency) through significant economic planning, but neither achieved economic self-sufficiency.^[238]

Yep. Democrats want to plan the economy.

How's the saying go? If you fail to plan, you plan to fail? Some parts of the new deal unequivocably proved themselves to be effective economic tools.

No, the new deal caused the depression.

Before regulation on agriculture, farmers were simply growing whatever product had sold for the highest price the previous year. Which... unfortunately meant they all grew the same thing leading to a massive oversupply, and bottoming out the price. Some coordination was clearly in order. One problem with a pure free market is that sometimes the feedback to sellers lags behind the decision making processes too far to be of any real value. Some pre-planning can fix that.

A successful economy based on totally uncoordinated freedom is a wonderfully inspiring ideal.

Nice straw man.

It should make anyone feel all starry eyed. But there's a reason for the stars. It's just like the Socialist Wellfare state. Both of them are beautiful dreams that can only exist in a world of pure fantasy. If I'm required to vote for one absurdity as the only means of opposing the other, ...... I think I'll just waste my vote and cast it for an independent. (It would be wasted anyway.)

Originally Posted by harold

Why not just leave it alone and don't do the takeover?

The Dem's hand was more or less forced by the Reps handing billions in bailout money unsecured, to a company that had been bankrupted partly by decades of GM abetted Rep misrule of its national economy (GM's executive cadre and financial ownership was largely and actively Republican) - the problems of handling the various aspects of the country's Second Great Republican Collapse were and are bigger than simplistic ideological boundaries. And again: The government did not even get a seat on the board, or voting stock. GM remains a joint stock corporation, private and capitalistic, and its corporate management remains largely Republican.

Originally Posted by harold

Fiscally responsible democrats. That's a unique view.

It's called "reality based". Look at the numbers.

Originally Posted by harold

No, the new deal caused the depression.

The Great Depression came first, the New Deal came later. The US under the terms of the New Deal exploded, economically, as no country ever had in the history of the planet - two consecutive generations of industrial economic growth without an economic crash, without a bubble and bust, without a serious retrenchment even.

And then came Reagan.

And then came Reagan.

Some of us were around back then and remember the misery index--- it wasn't under Reagan.

Some of us were around back then and remember the misery index--- it wasn't under Reagan.

No kidding.

Before the Reagan Era we were kind of spoiled, come to think of it. A little soft, maybe. Taking things for granted. 50 years of New Deal government looked like a permanent state of affairs. We had a misery index, for a situation we'd greet with hallelujahs if we could get it back.

Think we ever will?

Ice Post Vietnam was brutal with a deep recession that peaked under Jimmy Carter with high unemployment and inflation. Arguably it was worse than what we just went through in it's impact on people's lives, because it hit just about everyone, rather than this recent crisis which has most effected the blue collar uneducated. Your assertion that things were good until Reagan are wrong.

As for the New Deal(s), while few doubt they helped the most poor, it might have made the climb out of the Great Depression slower than it had to be. We'll never know because WWII interrupted the process. And being the only major nation with its industrial base left intact gave us an enormous advantages that lasted decades--probably only being threatened when Americans started driving Datsuns and other small Japanese cars in the 1970s.

Here's the misery index. (My memory is backed by facts)
http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

It looks like the "misery index" only counts unemployment and inflation. The biggest problem right now is that jobs are paying too little, not that jobs don't exist. People are having to add greater and greater numbers of hours in order to eat and make rent. (And often can't afford health insurance.)

Originally Posted by lynx

Ice Post Vietnam was brutal with a deep recession that peaked under Jimmy Carter with high unemployment and inflation. Arguably it was worse than what we just went through

Uh, dude - we haven't "just gone through" anything. We're still going through it; and it's much much worse than anything under Carter - you sure you haven't confused the Reagan Recession (the worst between 1930 and W) with Carter's term? That wasn't nearly this bad either, but it makes more sense as a comparison. Or maybe you're thinking of the 9% unemployment Carter inherited from Nixon, and cut by a third almost immediately?

The thing about the relatively mild little blip under Carter - a couple of months in 1979, basically - was that people were used to New Deal prosperity: gas prices jolt up, there's an actual (rigged) shortage, you might have to compromise on a bit lesser job than you expected out of college, there's no obvious excuse like the recent end of the Vietnam War (Nixon's cover), it's a shock. That kind of stuff hadn't been seen since the 1930s.

It's not a shock, any more. We see millions of foreclosures and hundreds of bank failures and gas prices running half the minimum wage, more than a third of the adult men unemployed and underemployed, the jobs all junk and part time and service, it seems familiar now - bad, sure, but not that far from normal. Thirty years of Reaganomics changes the whole perspective.

Originally Posted by lynx

in it's impact on people's lives, because it hit just about everyone, rather than this recent crisis which has most effected the blue collar uneducated.

I forgot about wingnut world - where there's the upper 10 or 20% second generation professionals and government or corporate pensioned exec level folks and others of guaranteed or inherited comfort, which is the regular people and the core of society and the norm, and then there's the "blue collar uneducated" or whatever the term is for everybody else: apparently that's some kind of psychological minority, not 4/5 of the country.

This recession, the Second Great Republican Disaster, which was saved from Crash level collapse only by trillions in emergency government cash printing which may yet fail to work simply by not being enough, hit everybody I care about and almost everybody else. The small and basically disposable elite it didn't hit, don't figure in the discussion - we can talk about them afterwards, if we have no more pressing concerns. The rest of us would trade the current economy for Carter's in a heartbeat, and shoot off fireworks in celebration.

As we've covered before here income has been pretty flat. Food cost actually going down compared to income and after the huge spike a few years ago, housing cost are much closer to the past few decade's average--though still too high. (regardless of the media fueled belly aching)

I think the issue is mostly the elephant in the room we haven't hit on yet....Medical expenses which continue to sky rocket and dramatically eat at disposable income. The Obama plan is unlikely to slow it down by much, at least in part, because it was designed by the medical insurance industry which traded some very modest controls for expansion of their customer base forced by law to contribute. It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme court knocks it all down because it's in effect an obligation to pay private companies by government mandate. (a public option wouldn't have had that problem) If that happens we'll all be back to the drawing boards.

Originally Posted by lynx

Food cost actually going down compared to income and after the huge spike a few years ago, housing cost are much closer to the past few decade's average--though still too high.

House sale prices have dropped part way to the historical trend line, but housing costs have not gone down much - rents are up, people still have to pay the mortgages acquired during the bubble decade, taxes are way up and rising, insruance is rising, utilities are rising, and the costs of the foreclosure dealings are still a heavy expense.

The increase in food prices has been fairly dramatic, and much more recent than a "few years ago".

Originally Posted by lynx

As we've covered before here income has been pretty flat.

Take home per hour wages have been dropping for thirty years, and continue to drop, for 4/5 of the country's people.

That's for the ones who have jobs.

I think the issue is mostly the elephant in the room we haven't hit on yet....Medical expenses which continue to sky rocket and dramatically eat at disposable income

Too late now - even the most optimistic forecasts don't see any actual rollback of that killer.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme court knocks it all down because it's in effect an obligation to pay private companies by government mandate. (a public option wouldn't have had that problem) If that happens we'll all be back to the drawing boards.

It won't matter - the problem is not that people are voluntarily freeloading on the system, the problem is that they can't afford to pay for medical insurance at US prices.

One hope is that we will end up with a two tier medical system - the upper classes will enjoy First World medical care at prices double or triple anyone else's on the planet, the bottom 2/3 of the economy will end up creating some kind of black market or unofficial medical economy similar to Mexico's - maybe even conjoined with it.

That would probably improve medical care overall for the lower classes in the US.

You'd probably have to destroy the Republican Party - eliminate it as a political power, jail some of its higher honchos - to get single payer health care in the US. I don't know how that would be done - 54 million people voted for W in 2004. That's a hopeless situation in the near term - they have to bottom out, have a rebirth of some kind, and then get their mental feet back under them. That would take years, starting now.

The hallarity is by calling the ten year recession of the 70's and and early 80's the Reagan Recession, you do the same that Harold does. Incorrectly pasting a label of fault on the people who actually went far to pull us out of those messes.

--

Food's gone up 4.4% last year....hardly worth your term "Dramatic."

Consumer Price Index Summary

--
But it's worth putting the light of reason and facts and other inconvenient things on your unsupported claims to how well they stood up--not very well. And show you food and rent.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As we've covered before here income has been pretty flat. Food cost actually going down compared to income and after the huge spike a few years ago, housing cost are much closer to the past few decade's average--though still too high. (regardless of the media fueled belly aching)

Also fuel costs. They're really crippling a lot of industries. Right now if you're a truck driver, you make less money per mile than the cost per mile of the gas that's going into your truck.

For any private individual who has to commute, that's chunk of their income too. (And the USA doesn't exactly have great mass transit systems in most of its cities.)

I think the issue is mostly the elephant in the room we haven't hit on yet....Medical expenses which continue to sky rocket and dramatically eat at disposable income. The Obama plan is unlikely to slow it down by much, at least in part, because it was designed by the medical insurance industry which traded some very modest controls for expansion of their customer base forced by law to contribute. It wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme court knocks it all down because it's in effect an obligation to pay private companies by government mandate. (a public option wouldn't have had that problem) If that happens we'll all be back to the drawing boards.

Defense contractors are the same thing as that. Any time tax money goes to a private company, "everyone is being force" to use that companies services. Where do you think the tax money comes from?

The Health industry is naturally a problem because we just have so many boomers reaching retirement. The trouble with any large population of people over 60 is they get sick, and get sick often. (The projected medical expense for a company insuring an old person is always somewhere between double and triple that of a younger person. ) Restructuring our coverage for the younger folk isn't going to make a serious difference one way or the other, but giving working people a better sense of security helps them live their lives better.

Originally Posted by kojax

[Where do you think the tax money comes from?

The 53%. Mostly the rich.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

Originally Posted by lynx

The hallarity is by calling the ten year recession of the 70's and and early 80's the Reagan Recession,

There ws no such thing.

During Carter's term - 1976 to 1980 - the economy grew an average of 3.4% per year - that includes the brief, sharp recession at the end. Not bad for starting out with 9% unemployment, from Nixon's attempts to handle the Vietnam War debt (his wage and price controls had their usual effects).

Originally Posted by lynx

Incorrectly pasting a label of fault on the people who actually went far to pull us out of those messes.

Reagan launched the mess we're in now - breaking the unions and deregulating the banks, bringing the first serious banking crisis since the New Deal. The only even slightly beneficial thing he did was keep Volcker, hired by Carter to deal with the inflation from Nixon's command economy manipulations, and even that was as painful as it was beneficial. Mostly because Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy, at exactly the wrong time.

Originally Posted by lynx

Food's gone up 4.4% last year....hardly worth your term "Dramatic."

4.4% is pretty steep in itself on top of the earlier spikes (it's 4% of a larger number), but the kicker is that it's a real increase, and larger than that relative to wages.

Dropping wages are the same as increasing prices, in an honest calculation - you leave them out, you can't see the real increase, and you miss the fact of the crash. Hence the term "dramatic". People suddenly can't afford the food they used to buy, because the prices have gone way up relative to their available income.

The CPI completely fails to account for that, as its underlying assumptions omit recession. All it considers is nominal price in dollars.

Originally Posted by lynx

But it's worth putting the light of reason and facts

Such as no ten year recession in the 70s and 80s? Falling wages? Your ridiculous claim that W's crash (Reagan's, actually - W and his Congress were simply and directly enacting the Reagan administration's agenda) was comparable to Carter's blip in 1979?

A little light, yes please.

Originally Posted by harold

The 53%. Mostly the rich.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

Which is why cutting taxes on the rich is so damaging.

A quick scan reveals, no links...no support. Conclusion, most likely just more empty rhetoric.

You got your wish, I actually didn't bother to read your post.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The hallarity is by calling the ten year recession of the 70's and and early 80's the Reagan Recession, you do the same that Harold does. Incorrectly pasting a label of fault on the people who actually went far to pull us out of those messes.

--

Food's gone up 4.4% last year....hardly worth your term "Dramatic."

Easy to say unless your income hasn't gone up, or has gone away, like mine.

Originally Posted by kojax

The Health industry is naturally a problem because we just have so many boomers reaching retirement.

The huge price increases in medical insurance, in the US, are the problem. We are paying double and triple what anyone else is paying, for the same old people they have.

Originally Posted by lynx

You got your wish, I actually didn't bother to read your post.

I'll shorten it.

Every allegedly factual assertion you have made in this thread is wingnut bullshit - never happened, doesn't exist, etc. Your links do not support your claims. There was no ten year recession in the 70s and 80s. Food prices have gone up dramatically, just as I asserted. Etc

BTW, this is a lie about me:

You got your wish, I actually didn't bother to read your post.

No such wish. No honorable reason for saying that. That kind of post from you is a symptom. You are seriously fucked up.

Originally Posted by iceaura

BTW, this is a lie about me:

You got your wish, I actually didn't bother to read your post.

No such wish. No honorable reason for saying that. That kind of post from you is a symptom. You are seriously fucked up.

Beside the fact you said this just a few days ago "“You need to just quit replying to my posts,” your language is completely unacceptable from or towards any member on this site.

This quote from you wasn't acceptable either:
"“You, like Harold, have psychiatric issues that interfere with your comprehension of even very, very simple arguments.”

This would have been easier if you simply shown some data to support your positions and discuss this like gentlemen--instead of making yet another outburst and personal attacks for similar reasons that got you in trouble in the past.

You are temporarily suspended while the mod team reviews.

Republicans only know one thing: quit when you're ahead, as everyone else would perceive it. No Republican ever announced victory successfully in anything, but they always seem to get into power while trouncing the greatest claims of greatness America has ever seen from the Democrats.


Why.......? (that's the question)

Is that a xcult? Can they be accused for that brevity of celebration?

Being Australian, my familiarity with the peculiarities of US political parties is probably not as deep as with Australia's, although we do get media coverage of US politics and, lately the Republican Presidential nominations contest. And the influence the US has internationally means it's unwise for those outside to ignore US politics. Yet it looks from here like rhetoric dominates, with clichéd one liners and appeals to emotive populist opinions more important than a clear sense of well thought out policy. Australia's mainstream politics is going that direction, aided and abetted by shallow mainstream media coverage more concerned with controversy and excitement - ie news and current affairs as popular entertainment. Clearly there must be more to the US Republicans than that.

To the initial premise - I think that the political parties of the Right are primarily the political voices of commerce and industry and have come to reflect their interests over and above the interests of the other elements that would be considered part of their support base. So strong is the corporate interest that the actual policies and decisions, rather than the rhetoric, will tend to comply with what those most powerful commercial interests want. With respect to a big issue like climate, (which I've been most involved in debating at ScienceForum), those interest have found the position they consider best for their purposes based on commercial decision making criteria like costs, competitiveness and profitability. The harms of climate change are seen as something they have no power to influence but government policy intended to reduce those harms are seen as something they do have the capacity to influence and those represent higher costs, reduced competitiveness and reduced profitability. As such they can and will use the tools they have for influencing government policy - which include tankthink, PR, advertising - to reduce those costs and maintain profitability. And a crucial element to success in this is in influencing political policy, most directly through the parties that give them a political voice. That is the Right leaning Liberal/National party in Australia and Republican Party in the US. Being so closely tied to those commercial interests, the political Right finds it difficult to do anything but promote the position those interests want.

Btut elected representatives hold positions of public trust and have responsibility that go beyond loyalty to those influential interests. They swear oaths of office that are not mere ceremony, but are moral and legal commitments. In the case of climate change, the formal scientific advice at the disposal of elected representatives all warn of grave future harms from failure to reign in emissions. The choice to dismiss and ignore that advice and maintain loyalty to those commercial interests - to serve them over the longer term national interest and the interests of their wider constituency has to represent a betrayal of trust. They may not rate as being a cult but the Republicans, like Australia's Right leaning Liberal and National parties, do appear to be parroting the views of corporate think tanks, supporting the promotion of misinformation and lies about a crucially important issue and encouraging dangerous illusions within the voting public in order to prevent timely and appropriate action to avoid serious, foreseeable future harms of unprecedented scale.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Republicans only know one thing: quit when you're ahead, as everyone else would perceive it. No Republican ever announced victory successfully in anything, but they always seem to get into power while trouncing the greatest claims of greatness America has ever seen from the Democrats.




Is that a xcult? Can they be accused for that brevity of celebration?

This is a republican that quitted, but with the help of Maggie T, won the Cold War.

" President Ronald Reagan, in his famous June 1982 speech to the British Parliament, described the outlines of "a plan and a hope for the long term—the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."Five years later, Reagan delivered an address at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, near the infamous Wall. "

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onp...6/garrity.html

Ken interesting take, but you're from the outside looking in. I can see the corporate side, perhaps being the most internationally visible. There are two other sides, the libertarian side which generally wants government out of most things involving individuals--thats the one I'm closer to. There's also the Evangelical side, that at its extreme end wants something closer to a Christian theocracy, where their take on Christian morals, is enforced by force of law on people's lives; it's the side I loath and think are the most dangerous to the nation.

From outside it does look like the corporate side dominates and in the end those other interests are more likely to be sacrificed in the back and forth of negotiating actual policy. Low corporate taxes and less corporate regulation look more like they are reflected in actual policy than lower personal taxation and less regulation of personal behavior - Libertarian rhetoric and sentiment gets the voters on side but ultimately the party serves those corporate interest. The conflicting interests of those Libertarians and Religious may simply allow greater scope for control of the agenda to rest with the commercial interests. Not that commerce and industry can or should be ignored; they are the part of society that makes and does things. But their decision making criteria are too narrow to allow for policy for the greatest good and aren't imbued with strong moral backbone. I'd think there would be a profound difference in values between them and the Religious Right. The strength of the appeal for the Religious of those stand out issues like abortion or teaching evolution manages to dominate but other issues that should be of concern for professed Christians can be ignored or treated as lesser ones that are sacrificed for the big ones is a question. Possibly a lot of tribalism that makes expressions of contrary views - which are abundant within religion - feel like expressions of disloyalty. Not a lot of deep thinking there I suspect, particularly of real world consequences of those kinds of compromises. Or even the ethics and morality of those kinds of compromises.

From here it look like the corporate interests dominate the Republican agenda and in many respects it plays off the incompatable interests of the Libertarian and Religious elements against each other, forcing those to be compromised to allow theirs to remain dominant. These may be misleading impressions but from my point of view a party that seems to have denial of science based reality as an essential prerequisite for Presidential nomination seems unlikely to be one that's capable of governing wisely. The rest of the world gets no vote but US policy impacts us all. Climate is probably the issue that most dominates my concerns and with a US that actively embraces denial rather than promotes solutions the policies of every other nation get skewed away from developing appropriate policies. The fundamentalists may no fear of a climate crisis, the corporate interests may welcome being able to continue to avoid the costs of remaking energy infrastructure but most people, the Libertarians may be pleased their carbon footprint is not subject to government regulation, but a profoundly serious problem that will make planet Earth a less hospitable, even hellish, place will go on gathering momentum with the most powerful and influential nation actively opposing serious action to prevent it. Scary.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by kojax

[Where do you think the tax money comes from?

The 53%. Mostly the rich.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

According to the charts in that link, the top 1% pays 36.73% of the Federal tax in 2009. If the Occupy people are correct, and the top 1% really receive 50% of the nation's income.... then shouldn't we be expecting them to pay 50% of the taxes, instead of just 36.73%?

If the Occupy people are correct, and the top 1% really receive 50% of the nation's income.

I'd like to see their math. The hard truth is the break even point between contributers and those who receive is probably about 70,000 or so, those below that line (most of the OWS) are getting far more than they are putting into the "system."

Admittedly, the link also shows that the bottom 50% of the people pay 2.25% of the taxes. I don't think taxes are what the OWS people are going on about, though.

To: Dave

Do you remember Bill Clintons surpluses ?

Do you remember the way Bill Clinton was paying down our national debt ?

Do you remember how good every ones stocks were doing when Bill Clinton was in office ?




Also you are confusing Bill Clintons (moral) compass with his (sexual) compass.

B. Clinton has saved millions of people from dieing in his after politics charity work. Bill Clintons moral compas is outstanding.


How did GW Bush make Clintons surpluses go away ?
At how fast of a rate was our debt to GDP falling when Bill Clinton was in office ?
At how fast of a rate was our debt to GDP rising when GW Bush was in office ?

With all respects, I guess you republicans care more about Bill Clintons (moral?) compass, than you do Americas national debt and deficits ??

To each his own.

The only reason republicans have less campain $ is because they dont need it.

All of the large corporations that love republican (trickle down) tax cuts, privately pay for negative tv adds for the republicans.

Democrats do not get these (free) tv comercials b/c they raise their taxes.

And remember, America has the 2nd lowest (actuall) corporate tax rate in the world, and Warren Buffets tax rate is 1/2 lower than yours.

Originally Posted by harold14370

i looks like the democrats got a lot of their economic ideas from fascism.






(((((but all the college educated experts say its the republicans that are like facists)))))






fascism - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

economic policies

further information: economics of fascism
fascists promoted their ideology as a "third position" between capitalism and bolshevism.^[230] italian fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers, and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.^[231]





(((((((((((((but you think its 100% ok that ceo's and corporations run our government, this is exactly how fascist adolf hitler ran his country, hitler gave huge power to germanys corporations, just like republicans fight for.))))))))))))

managing the economy at the national level. Yep. Democrats do that.

fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed "national corporatism", "national socialism" or "national syndicalism".^[38] the common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.^[232]








((((((((((((((((lets just be blunt, republicans think government is there for one thing, to keep rich people like warren buffets tax rate at 17% or lower))))))))))))))))))))))





according to bruce pauley, fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalize it.^[233]

exercising control over property without nationalizing it. Democrat idea.

however, according to patricia knight, they did, with the italian fascist government coming to own the highest percentage of industries outside the soviet union.^[234] the nazis also nationalized some business.^[235] in fact, the "twenty-five point programme" of the nazi party, adopted in 1920, demanded "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations."^[236]

this iis what democrats want.

fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state- or party-controlled.^[237] attempts were made by both fascist italy and nazi germany to establish "autarky" (self-sufficiency) through significant economic planning, but neither achieved economic self-sufficiency.^[238]

yep. Democrats want to plan the economy.

((((((((((((((((((((( I forgot, this is wrong, government has one role, things like a 0% tax rate on dividends, so people like Warren Buffet have a 0% tax rate. )))))))))))))))))))))))))





(((((((((((google "corporations writing laws", when ever a law is passed in Washinton, that law was writen by GE corp or some large insurance companys lawyers, this is simular to Hitlers facists ways, and its the republicans that think this is ok, not the democrats))))))))))))))))))))))





this part was deleted after reading the following post

Chad...that's not counter argument, nor civil conversation.

Dave,

I felt bad about my remarks to you, I am sorry.

You are just like my step-father , I assume you too are a good and honest person.



Its just that Reagan and GW Bush created our dangerous national debt and deficts.

While Clinton was actually paying our national debt down, If GW Bush would have never got into the White House our national debt would be bellow 50% to GDP.



But now because of republican tax cuts our national debt is around 100% GDP, I think Greeces was around 150% when they fell.


After GW Bushs tax cuts expire our deficits will go way down, and after some time this financial security could spread to a state level.
(the deficits GW Bush created effected our states as well.)

If our next president is like Reagan or GW Bush (a big time tax cutter) and they get a willing congress, and pass another round of tax cuts, our debt will we be as high as Greeces was to GDP,and this cant be good.

All you republicans believe that tax cuts for corporations and the rich create jobs and make America great, but the rich actually use the tax cut money to build factories in China and to buy personal Learjets, helocopters, and Rolls Royces.



I have looked at Americas deficits and debt history on wiki, and I have seen the way the numbers rised during Reagans and GW Bushs tax cuts.

If we get another Reagan or GW Bush with a willing congress, and they do tax cuts, our deficits will be science fiction like huge.


And you republicans are voting for more of Reagan and GW Bush style government, to bankrupt the government of the United States of America, so you can finiance the building of US factories in China, and buy americas rich Learjets and Rolls Royces.

I have never seen anything this crazy in a Steven King movie or allien mind control x-files TV show.

Originally Posted by chad

Dave,

I felt bad about my remarks to you, I am sorry.

Chad,
I accept your apology.

But now because of republican tax cuts our national debt is around 100% GDP, I think Greeces was around 150% when they fell.

I agree about the tax cuts to some degree, but think that's a very imcomplete picture. Spending has gone up dramatically, in real numbers and compared to % of GDP. Over the past three decades we've moved from federal spending being about a quarter of our GDP to it now being over 40%. Once you account for state and local spending we're well over 50% of the economy being government. This is were I side with the tea party, Ron Paul and other libertarians, and think the government, at every level, needs to be much smaller.
US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP United States 1960-2010 - Federal State Local Data

I definitely agree that the national debate needs to shift entirely away from who raises/lowers taxes and focus only on who raises/lowers spending (admitting that the democrats may not be favored by that shift.....).

Lowering taxes without lowering spending is like taking aspirin when you've got an aggressive bacterial disease. It only delays the symptoms, without doing anything at all to solve the real problem. Likely, when the anesthesia wears off, we'll be paying taxes larger than any generation in memory did regardless of who's controlling congress at the time. Deficit spending has limits that even the Tea Party can't just preach away.

Originally Posted by chad

The only reason republicans have less campain $ is because they dont need it.

All of the large corporations that love republican (trickle down) tax cuts, privately pay for negative tv adds for the republicans.

Democrats do not get these (free) tv comercials b/c they raise their taxes.

And remember, America has the 2nd lowest (actuall) corporate tax rate in the world, and Warren Buffets tax rate is 1/2 lower than yours.

In today's political environment, looking at the actual money in a candidate's "war chest" tells you almost zero about how much real funding their campaign has. The bulk of the spending is likely to be from political action groups who air advertisements on their behalf, and that money has absolutely no presence whatsoever in the campaign fund itself. So, if Joe Millionaire really wants to fund John Q. Senator's campaign, he'll write a small check up to the maximum donation limit to his campaign itself, then write another check for a couple of million dollars to the political action group (which is allowed to accept absolutely unlimited donations).

Having more money in the campaign fund itself indicates you have a larger number of separate small donors. If republicans don't have that, then it's probably because they're relying on a few very big donors.

All of this talk about spending, has no economic or scientific backing to it. Spending is actually irrelevant here.

And the only reason you all are even talking (or thinking) about spending, is because republican corporate think tanks, sent emails to Fox news and Rush radio instructing them, to tell you all phrases like "the democrats spending will destroy America." The think tanks told Fox/ Rush to tell you all this because these corporate think tanks love their republican tax cuts.

Goto wiki and look at Americas defict and debt history.


After Clinton raised Reagans trickle down tax rates, our government had huge surpluses, and Clinton was paying down our national debt.

Clintons tax system had America funtioning at 100%, Clinton was able to pay for all of our social programs, while at the same time paying down our national debt.

Then GW Bush switched us back to Reagans trickle down tax system, and then our surpluses disappeared, and our national debt started to go up.




IF BILL CLINTONS TAX SYSTEM WAS PAYING DOWN OUR NATIONAL DEBT, AND AT THE SAME TIME PAYING FOR ALL OF OUR SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

How could spending be a problem ?


As the democrats say "we do not have a spending problem, we have a tax revenue problem, caused by trickle down economics."





These corporate think tank phrases, that Fox news and Rush radio tell you republicans, have flipped your brains, and taken you all away from reality.







Then theres your republican stated figures about "the top 1% paying 36% of all taxes, and the bottom 50% paying 2.25."

But these top 1% of Americans, like Warren Buffet pay " 17 cents out of every dollar they make in taxes."
And Americans who make $60,000 a year pay "30 cents out of evey dollar they make in taxes."

If the top 1% has a 17% tax rate.
and regular Americans have a 30% tax rate.

What is the point of these figures ???



Your brains, are also in a anti-reality world deeper than above, because your top 1% think tank figures, dont include state taxes, sales taxs or parole taxes.




These incomplete corporate think tank figures make it appear Americas rich are paying lots of taxes, while in reality they pay 1/2 the tax rate as regular Americans.


Then the think tanks told Rush/ Fox to tell you all the lie "tax cuts increase government revenues". And this brings you all into a deeper false reality.

they tell you tax cuts create jobs
they tell you large corporations create jobs (that are not in china)

and 100's of more lies like these, and they flipped your brains.











Then you republicans give rich americans trickle down tax cut money, (in the name of creating american jobs), but you let them be free to spend the tax cut money, anyway they want too. The rich take this trickle down tax cut money, that was ment to create US jobs, and they buy themselves new factories in China and Rolls Royces.


But what if regular americans were using solar energy tax cut money, to buy flat screen tv sets ? you all would be outraged, and think that it was wrong.


But when americas rich use trickle down tax cut money, to buy Rolls Royces, this is ok, and you all want more trickle down tax cuts.


and perhaps spending has gone up, but this is because of the republicans too, for reasons like the following.


The democrats want our government to be able to buy generic drugs, for medicaid patients to save our government money, but the republicans are against this.

And the republicans use government money for things like this, to buy and build their campain donors, their own nuclear power plant. These campain donors, then use this power plant to sell electricity (and keep all the money for themselves), this kind of givaway costs our government huge money.

Just like Reagans "Starwars" project , all the real scientists said, Starwars could (not) work, but Reagan gave those corporations the Starwars money any way.

Its just like when that republican presidential candidate, was talking about going to the moon recently , he said that because some US corporations want to go into space and mine for metals. And that republican pres. canidate wants the US government, to pay for that US corportions space mining bussiness start up and set up. Just like republicans buy certain people their own nuclear power plant, and let them keep all the profits.


And when the republicans give many, many corporations like GE a $3 billion dollar refund check, this cost lots of money for our government

And because Reagan and GW Bush brought our national debt from 40% to GDP (to) 100% of GDP, we now have to pay the interest on that.

Chad are you a bot, or do you wish to actually join this conversation?

Instead of just throwing accusations around about what new channel republicans listen to, why don't you actually address one of the points brought up. Do you think it's ok for government to represent half our economy?

Stop preaching.

One point he made well is that cutting taxes in the top income bracket will do nothing to fix the recession. We need consumption to go up in order for the recession to improve and wealthy people are not good consumers. On the one hand, they divert too large a portion of their income into savings .... which already exists in tremendous surplus right now as evidenced by the low interest rates.

On the other hand, when they do spend the money they don't do so predictably. Their consumption isn't tied to basic necessities, because those are satisfied using only a very tiny fraction of their income, which means the rest is emotional spending.... hard to predict. Also it's difficult to conduct effective market research, partly because you're dealing with a small minority out of a larger population who have little in common (other than their income level), which gives you a small sample set to draw statistical data from. Also they're just plain hard to get a hold of on the phone/focus groups/questionaires.

It's very hard to build a business trying to sell to unpredictable consumers.

We need consumption to go up in order for the recession to improve

That's part of our problem, now and for the future. Our entire economic system seems tied to wasteful spending of crap we don't need, replacing instead of fixing things, or replacing them before we need to.

And although we've hit on it before, much of the now investment money goes into "labor saving" technology, rather then just hiring more unskilled workers, who this time around are taking the brunt of the recession. I think our entire system is heading for a cliff.

When we ask the rich, who already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes to pay even more, it's not only unfair, but just rewards a completely out of control government spending philosophies.

I think government should be bigger. But honest, caring, and (((inteligent))) at the same time.


I want Americas government to be so big, that a government worker is in my house 2 minutes after I call 911, when my Aunt or step- father is having a heart attack. (I really hate the 15 minute present waiting time)



And you all consider it to be a sin, for our government to help poor countrys, but I want (my) government to be so big, that it makes sure there is not (1) un-happy or un-healthy person on this (entire) planet.

And I would want my government to have -0- deficits and -0- national debt while they would do this.




But you all see our governments sole role, as the protector of freemarkets. And you all talk about nothing else, other than rich mens financial forecasts.



You all want (freemarkets) to be our futures creator and protector.


But me personally I do (not) want a non-human, and non-inteligent organism called (freemarkets) to protect my family and my country, I want an honorable and inteligent group of people to do it.




What is government ? I say its a group of leaders that protect and try to make (all) their people happy and safe.


But you all want freemarkets and (fantasy world charity systems) to do this. How the f--- could freemarkets protect our familys and planet ??





The thing is your (free markets) do not care when you dont have health insurance.

Free markets do not care when you dont have a job.

And free markets do not care when your children dont have enough food to eat.


(free markets are not even a life form or computer, and you all want this thing to create our future, run our country, and protect our familys. I wish you all at least wanted a computer to do this job, at least a computer kinda has inteligence)



Government is our leader, and you all want free markets to be our government. And I do not want (freemarkets) to be my leader or chief.



You all have forgoton, that governments purpose is to protect its people and make them happy and safe.
and you all dont realize that free markets (and your fantasy charity system) cant do this.




I have 2 young nephews, and I do not want them solely protected by your (free markets) and your fantasy world charity system.




But you all say it is not governments responsibility, to protect and care for my young nephews.


You all say its private charitys job, to personally care for my nephews, but there are already huge numbers of american kids in poverty, and private charity is not helping them.



We are human beings, and un-like other animals we can control our environment to a very large degree. We could do so much, we could eliminate so much suffering and so much destruction on this planet.

But you all want to let the (free markets) control our future and wellbeing, insteed of honest, caring, and inteligent (human beings).





32,000 children starve to death everyday.
huge numbers of plants and animals go exstint everyday
we are destroying many of our eco-systems
a germ like the old European plagues, could come tommorow and kill un-thinkable numbers of people.
ex. ex. ex.
ex. ex. ex.
ex. ex. ex,


But you all believe the above things must be ok, because if the above things were wrong or bad the (freemarkets) would save them.


news flash - the freemarkets have no brains or morals, its insane that you all should want (freemarkets) to be our futures creator, rather than honorable inteligent human beings.


Its f.ing crazy, but you republicans went into americas courts, and sued to give US corporations, the same civil rights as humans. And you all got it. Now in american law corporations have (human) rights of free speach. (but corporations are not humans).


You all think corporations should have the rights of (humans), and you all may think freemarkets are humans too, but they are not.

Warren Buffet, Freespeachtv, and linktv say this, when you give a rich person a tax cut, they put the money in the bank, or build a factory in China. And this does nothing to help the american economy.

But when you give poor people tax cuts they actually spend the money, and spend it in america.


Warren Buffet and others say we should give poor people tax cuts, rather than the rich. Because they go out and spend the money, in restarants, movie theaters, ex.ex. and when this happens it stimulates the whole economy. And all the money stays in america.

Poor people don't pay federal income taxes, Chad.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Poor people don't pay federal income taxes, Chad.

But poor people pay sales tax, payrole taxes, and state taxes.

Its almost funny, corporations like GE pay 0% federal taxes, and they get billions of dollars in tax refunds.


Just (one) poor american that you all claim pays no federal taxes, pays his state, payrole, and sales taxes. And his tax payments, are greater than the taxes paid by corporations like GE.

Literally just (one, 1) poor american pays more taxes than GE and 12 other huge corporations combined.

I am calling these poor americans big time tax payers, because just (one, 1) of them alone pays more taxes, than GE and 12 other huge corporations combined.


I am very, very, very sorry for being rude to you all, its just that certain things in our government upset me.

Why do you think corporations should pay anything?

Seriously I think their tax rate should be zero. Not just GE + 12 others, but all of them from the tiniest mom and pop to the largest.

Corporations are people. Every penny spent in tax is just passed to a consumer, taken from the paycheck of someone working there, or from something that will make them less competitive. If there is a place I'd compromise it might be that only the largest businesses start to pay, since that's the size they start to be monopolization problems and slow growers that aren't adding to the overall economy compared to smaller businesses.

It would be nice if you'd just focus on a few issues and not post another manifesto full of false accusations about people not caring about the poor. Most of us care for the poor, republicans (or at least this one) just think we should have a system that allows most people to support themselves and only help the most desperate.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

We need consumption to go up in order for the recession to improve

That's part of our problem, now and for the future. Our entire economic system seems tied to wasteful spending of crap we don't need, replacing instead of fixing things, or replacing them before we need to.

Modern technology grants the greatest efficiencies to quantity production rather than quality. We could try and refocus toward less making of "useless crap", and instead build a very small number of very high quality goods (like gulf stream personal airplanes or yachts) but then we would have little or no advantage over our ancestors 500 years ago.

Besides, if you read the entirety of my post, I'm not complaining about the quantity of consumption being low. I'm noting that wealthy people are unpredictable consumers, which makes it almost impossible to build a successful economy around providing for their needs. You have to be able to plan in advance.

If we produce a 1) house, 2) 20 barrels of grain, and 3) a nice car, each on the off chance someone will buy them, but only the car gets bought, then the grain and the house are wasted production which satisfied no utility for anyone. Essentially we just did 3 times the normal amount of work in order to satisfy one consumer's utility. It's the worst possible sort of waste. Poor peoples' predictability prevents that from happening. Otherwise we've always got to build every possible choice, without even knowing if any of it will be useful to someone.

And although we've hit on it before, much of the now investment money goes into "labor saving" technology, rather then just hiring more unskilled workers, who this time around are taking the brunt of the recession. I think our entire system is heading for a cliff.

No it doesn't. It goes into hunting for cheaper labor, building the same factory, just as inefficient as ever, but putting it somewhere the workers are downtrodden enough to have a low self esteem. Cheap labor "dulls the blade" so to speak, in terms of improving efficiency. It removes (or at least reduces) the incentive to take risks by attempting to innovate.

Also, labor saving technology doesn't necessarily reduce the unskilled workforce at all. Many people around the time of the computer revolution, for example, postulated that the number of workers employed in doing paperwork would drop dramatically after their jobs were automated. The exact opposite is what actually happened, because the computers opened up new possibilities for data analysis. Now more people than ever are employed in those offices. The only truly reliable effect labor saving devices have is that they extend our reach.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why do you think corporations should pay anything?

They use up police, fire, road services - every government service people use, and often more of it than we do. (They certainly use our defense budget up.)

Seriously I think their tax rate should be zero. Not just GE + 12 others, but all of them from the tiniest mom and pop to the largest.

Corporations are people. Every penny spent in tax is just passed to a consumer, taken from the paycheck of someone working there, or from something that will make them less competitive. If there is a place I'd compromise it might be that only the largest businesses start to pay, since that's the size they start to be monopolization problems and slow growers that aren't adding to the overall economy compared to smaller businesses.

It would be nice if you'd just focus on a few issues and not post another manifesto full of false accusations about people not caring about the poor. Most of us care for the poor, republicans (or at least this one) just think we should have a system that allows most people to support themselves and only help the most desperate.

I agree with taxing corporations that are pushing the monopoly limit more than others, but not every dime of tax money charged from them is from a poor workers' paycheck or built into the final price of the product. Most of it probably falls into the "overhead" category, which means it's coming out of managements' salaries.

Basically there are two categories of cost

1) - Fixed cost/overhead

This cost is payed regardless of how many units ship out. If this cost is high, the appropriate course of action is to keep the per-unit price low and make it up in volume. Sam Walton's ability to see this is a lot of what made Walmart so successful.

2) - Variable costs/Per unit cost

Your unskilled workers are usually paid by the hour, and of course your consumers pay you by the products they buy. This is a lot of the reason right here why worker wages are dropping and management wages are rising. It's because lowering the variable costs affects the sale price of your product the most, while lowering the CEO's salary (a fixed cost) doesn't affect it very much at all.

If a tax primarily focuses on overhead, it won't have much impact on the per unit price, or unskilled workers' wages. If it is focused on gross income, then it will hurt workers/consumers quite a lot.

I agree with taxing corporations that are pushing the monopoly limit more than others, but not every dime of tax money charged from them is from a poor workers' paycheck or built into the final price of the product. Most of it probably falls into the "overhead" category, which means it's coming out of managements' salaries.

I think that's pure speculation and doesn't agree with the severe cuts in benefits such as health and pensions for workers in struggling US industries.

But suppose for the sake of argument you're right--how do you target overhead cost in the tax code?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Why do you think corporations should pay anything?

Seriously I think their tax rate should be zero. Not just GE + 12 others, but all of them from the tiniest mom and pop to the largest.





I am very sorry for my rude tone, I had second thoughts of even posting this, sorry.




((( You are more radical than me !!! )))



You want to create, a totally new form of government and tax system, were businesses pay no taxes.



Lets just say that government and organized tax collecting , began in Roman times, around 2000 years ago.

In the last 2000 years, has their ever been a complex and (rich) economy, that charged and collected -0%- taxes from bussineses ?

whats the name of this economic theory ??

Were has this form of government been done before ??



I have heard people tell the republicans " If you want small government, move to Somalia" , you see Somalias government collects the amount of taxes, that you want our government to collect.




Our government needs lots of tax money, to build dams, bridges, and roads. It also needs tax money to fund things like the EPA and public schools, that make our country an (industrialized) one.






If our government charged 0% taxes for all businesses, our government would be like (a third world countrys government.)




Its funny, I am a very simple person, I would not even mind living in Somalia.


But its you republicans who (really) dont want to live in a country like Somalia. And yet you all have dreams to make our government, like Somalias government.








Corporations are people. Every penny spent in tax is just passed to a consumer, taken from the paycheck of someone working there, or from something that will make them less competitive. If there is a place I'd compromise it might be that only the largest businesses start to pay, since that's the size they start to be monopolization problems and slow growers that aren't adding to the overall economy compared to smaller businesses.









Its ironic, you are a retired soldier. You, and your fellow soldiers, are the biggest government workers, in the history of all mankind.

It is tax money collected from businesses, that purchase (your brothers and sisters in arms) superior weapons.

When your fellow soldiers use their radio system, to call in a helicopter or airplane, its tax money from businesses, that purchased their radio and bought that (very) expensive helicopter.

Soldiers in Somalia dont have nice radios and helipoters like US soldiers do, because their government is like the one you want to create.



((((((((((((((((((the problem is not big government its corupt and stupid government.))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))




I hope that, if and when you republicans transform our government, into a government like Somalia's. In the aftermath US citezens will take in the philosophys that people like me believe in.


Its tax money from businesses that paid your salary, and pay your pention. But you soldiers are lucky, because the billionaires and corporations that run our government, they want soldiers around to protect their property (and interests).


But all the americans who use things like public schools and government aid, they are not as lucky as you soldiers. Because the billionaires and corporations that run our government, dont care about these things, they see them as un-needed.







It would be nice if you'd just focus on a few issues and not post another manifesto full of false accusations about people not caring about the poor. Most of us care for the poor, republicans (or at least this one) just think we should have a system that allows most people to support themselves and only help the most desperate.

I consede that you care about the poor and your fellow americans as much as me. And theres a good chance, you care about your fellow americans, more than me, being your job was, to protect the rest of us.

Thanks you chad for that.

Its ironic, you are a retired soldier. You, and your fellow soldiers, are the biggest government workers, in the history of all mankind.

You're quite correct, between DOD and the VA it is a huge number of people. But I certainly didn't pick the size of our military(and think it could be MUCH smaller), nor put it into harms way creating millions of disabled. It's also worth noting that defense of our nation IS a constitutional mandate, while huge chunks of our federal budget have zero foundation in the US constitution. I don't think it was ever our founders intentions to create gigantic agencies where the highest level of government bypasses all the other levels and gives money directly to people...unless of course they were its direct employ.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Thanks you chad for that.

Its ironic, you are a retired soldier. You, and your fellow soldiers, are the biggest government workers, in the history of all mankind.

This statement was not intended as an insult. Thank you, for all that you all do.






I don't think it was ever our founders intentions to create gigantic agencies where the highest level of government bypasses all the other levels and gives money directly to people...unless of course they were its direct employ.

"we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america."




we the people of the united states - (americas highest government officials said this.) These first words of our constitution make me think this, (our government is us.)


Americas highest government officials, who wrote our constitution, wanted to make sure all americans had the following things.
And I dont think they just wanted government officials, to do these things, but (all) americans as well.


to form a more perfect union - to me this means, they wanted to come together perfectly, or wanted to live in a perfect country.


establish justice - to me this means, they wanted the US government to make righteousness, be in control of (all) of america.



insure domestic tranquillity - for US government officials, to insure all american homes are calm and happy.


Many americans that live in poverty, ((and other americans as well )) are not in a state of tranquillity.


Our constitution says, our government is to insure all americans tranquillity.


But today you all say, our government has no resposability, to help un-lucky americans achieve tranquillity.



(definition) welfare- the state of being or doing well, condition of health, happiness and confort, well being prosperity.



promote the general welfare - the US government is to promote all americans being and doing well, the US government is to promote all americans good health, the US government is to promote all americans happiness and confort, and the US government is to promote everyones prosperity.

( but today you all say our government has no resposibity to do these things )





Sounds like our founding fathers would have been Green party members.



When I first started writing this, I wanted to say, you are tough.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Thanks you chad for that.

Its ironic, you are a retired soldier. You, and your fellow soldiers, are the biggest government workers, in the history of all mankind.

You're quite correct, between DOD and the VA it is a huge number of people. But I certainly didn't pick the size of our military(and think it could be MUCH smaller), nor put it into harms way creating millions of disabled. It's also worth noting that defense of our nation IS a constitutional mandate, while huge chunks of our federal budget have zero foundation in the US constitution. I don't think it was ever our founders intentions to create gigantic agencies where the highest level of government bypasses all the other levels and gives money directly to people...unless of course they were its direct employ.

Yeah I've noticed that too. All too often a local agency will be dependent on tax money from the FED, which means they'll have to conform to some Federal requirement in order to receive it. But..... if the Fed just gave that money back to the tax payers in the first place, then the state could have collected those taxes and given them to its own agency. There's kind of a carrying capacity as far as taxation goes. The combination of state and federal taxes has to be low enough for a person to survive (ideally staying below 50% of one's income..... .but it doesn't always..) A fine example used to be the 55 mph speed limit. A state couldn't be forced to abide by it, but if they didn't they'd lose out on Federal funding for their roads.

We really should fix that in the constitution, so the Fed isn't allowed to pay out money's into state run institutions, but rather is simply forced to give back the taxes when it becomes apparent that state agencies are better equipped to use the funds.

Originally Posted by kojax

We really should fix that in the constitution, so the Fed isn't allowed to pay out money's into state run institutions,

It wouldn't matter. The constitution is regularly violated anyway, specifically the 10th amendment. These programs being discussed are not among the enumerated powers.

Honestly chad you don't seem to understand what " general welfare" means.

As for jobs, while many have left the nation and will probably continue to do so in the future, many sectors, such as farming have had nearly their entire work force replaced by machines a trend that coninues to this day and might even be accelerating. We're already at a point where we can keep enough employess to make basic necessities--and it now eating even into all the junk we think we'd like to have. Not sure how this pans out in the end--I hope it's towards a socieity where everyone still works but its only 20 hours a week with the rest fuel a reactional and "experience" sectors; that a better model than 50% unemployment for example.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...economists-say

It's not an "either, or" between 20 hour work weeks and manufacturing piles of useless crap. There's also services. We could reach a point where 50% of the population are skilled massage experts, and you work those extra 20 hours (to make 40) in order to get a back rub on the weekend.

For 20 hour work weeks to happen, realistically we'd have to raise wages, including unskilled. Skilled wages aren't actually isolated from the same effects that cause unskilled wages to plummet. Imported IT workers and even medical doctors from India have been driving down wages across the board. Any society with a screwed up enough social system is going to have people desperate to leave. That's becoming the new "competitive advantage".

Originally Posted by lynx

I agree about the tax cuts to some degree, but think that's a very imcomplete picture. Spending has gone up dramatically, in real numbers and compared to % of GDP. Over the past three decades we've moved from federal spending being about a quarter of our GDP to it now being over 40%

The main reason government spending went up so much as a percentage of GDP is that W&Co crashed the GDP. The secondary reason is that W&Co started two very expensive land wars in Asia Minor.

Otherwise, the entire added deficit of W's administration, up to the Crash, was the enormous tax cuts for rich people. The level of taxation imposed on the wealthy during the years of America's prosperity was perfectly reasonable and well considered, dramatically reducing it has done serious damage to the overall economy.

When the US government cuts taxes dramatically for the only segment of the economy whose income is increasing, simultaneously with starting two wars and abetting offshore financial and manufacturing deals, the resultant deficits are not a problem of "government spending" being out of control. They're a problem of bad governing ideology being in control.

Originally Posted by lynx

Not sure how this pans out in the end--I hope it's towards a socieity where everyone still works but its only 20 hours a week with the rest fuel a reactional and "experience" sectors; that a better model than 50% unemployment for example

There is no way to cut the work week any further than it is already with employer based medical insurance - the overhead per employee is far too high, the pressure is in the other direction: longer hours per employee. Single payer medical insurance of course increases "government spending", or at least it would in the US (First World countries have socialized medicine that costs about what the US spends on Medicare and Medicaid per capita, so in theory the US could eliminate the burden of employer based medical insurance without raising government spending a nickel).

btw: anybody have any idea what happened to my earlier posting in this thread?

Unskilled labor is almost almost going away. This is why they're getting hammered in this last downturn and will continue to be as we automate or outsource damn near everything. That's not saying everyone needs to go to college...but we'll need an education system that get people through high school in much larger numbers than now and provides either college or a technical education.

The fastest growing job categories in the US, in both numbers and percent, are low skill service jobs. Fastest growing occupations They pay about 20k a year. This is typical of ecoomies in which great income inequality is permitted to accumulate, and the rich are not taxed enough to stabilize a middle class.

As a general rule of thumb, skilled jobs are easier to offshore than unskilled jobs - especially, unskilled service jobs. People can read X-rays and crunch numbers and write software from anywhere, but no one can mow a lawn from the other side of an ocean.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Cause ya know...the evil Republicans have all the big money...

Ow wait!

1	Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)	R	$156,050,022	$303,575,011	$451,100,000
2	Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)	D	$182,755,534	$238,812,296	$294,869,059
3	Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)	D	$65,692,210	$174,385,102	$283,077,995
4	Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)	D	$36,694,140	$160,909,068	$285,123,996
5	Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)	D	$89,358,027	$160,302,011	$231,245,995
6	Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.)	R	-$69,434,661	$148,373,160	$366,180,982
7	Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)	R	$73,685,086	$137,611,043	$201,537,000
8	Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)	R	$38,936,114	$109,034,052	$179,131,990
9	Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)	D	$61,446,018	$98,832,010	$136,218,002
10	Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)	D	$64,210,256	$94,870,116	$125,529,976
11	Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)	D	$46,055,250	$77,082,134	$108,109,018
12	Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)	D	$49,083,204	$76,886,611	$104,690,018
13	Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)	D	-$7,356,915	$58,436,537	$124,229,990
14	Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.)	R	$19,365,053	$51,833,526	$84,302,000
15	Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)	R	$9,778,047	$50,717,522	$91,656,998
16	Rep. Diane Lynn Black (R-Tenn.)	R	$14,673,049	$49,409,519	$84,145,990
17	Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)	R	$19,898,179	$43,797,589	$67,697,000
18	Rep. Richard Berg (R-N.D.)	R	$19,347,579	$39,164,515	$58,981,451
19	Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)	D	$14,900,036	$39,012,518	$63,125,000
20	Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)	R	$13,303,385	$38,204,868	$63,106,351

Congressional Millionaires To Weigh Obama's Proposed 'Buffett Rule' - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

I PROTEST this inflammatory thread and demand somebody be BANNED accordingly! I find it abrasive and snarky too and my poor little feelings are hurt! Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! He used the c-word, the bad, bad, man!

Originally Posted by iceaura

The fastest growing job categories in the US, in both numbers and percent, are low skill service jobs. Fastest growing occupations They pay about 20k a year. This is typical of ecoomies in which great income inequality is permitted to accumulate, and the rich are not taxed enough to stabilize a middle class.

As a general rule of thumb, skilled jobs are easier to offshore than unskilled jobs - especially, unskilled service jobs. People can read X-rays and crunch numbers and write software from anywhere, but no one can mow a lawn from the other side of an ocean.

Or flip a burger, pick a tomato, or wipe a butt. For that we have immigrants.

Originally Posted by arthur

Or flip a burger, pick a tomato, or wipe a butt. For that we have immigrants.

And unemployment. But not wage increases.

Originally Posted by kojax

Yeah I've noticed that too. All too often a local agency will be dependent on tax money from the FED, which means they'll have to conform to some Federal requirement in order to receive it. But..... if the Fed just gave that money back to the tax payers in the first place, then the state could have collected those taxes and given them to its own agency.

Maybe one can sneak this past the honorable gentlemen and their characteristic techniques:

most of those Fed -> State expenditures handle matters intrinsically larger scale than State policy can manage. Road and waterway systems, agricultural policy, public health, landscape management on watershed scales, pollution control of various kinds, cross multiple State lines as a matter of course. Regulation of corporations and labor and the like is now multinational even, let alone Federal. Having insular States collect their own taxes and attempt to manage such things within their own tiny borders is an obvious fail in the making.

There is no substitute for good, appropriate scale government. If you can't establish it, then you live with the consequences - you don't magically vanish the matters you needed it for.

Cause ya know...the evil Republicans have all the big money...

Ow wait!

Relevance? Nothing to do with the OP, apparently, but maybe there's an argument to arrive later?

Or is this an example of the sort of random, meaningless link we are supposed to supply ourselves, as "data", whenever we post on this ever so scientific forum?

most of those Fed -> State expenditures handle matters intrinsically larger scale than State policy can manage. Road and waterway systems, agricultural policy, public health, landscape management on watershed scales, pollution control of various kinds, cross multiple State lines as a matter of course. Regulation of corporations and labor and the like is now multinational even, let alone Federal. Having insular States collect their own taxes and attempt to manage such things within their own tiny borders is an obvious fail in the making.

State governments are much more able to resource ($), research, monitory and and base decisions on fact based data than at any time in the past. In some cases, such as interstate transportation, there's no doubt the federal gov should handle most of the standards, and perhaps even work with the states so they meet those stadards such as width of and serviceability of major highways. On the other hand, there's many issues such as water pollution regulation, healthcare, unemployment, college loans and many more which only have affects inside state lines (for the most part) and can be handled by states or by direct coordination between one or more states. The sad fact is regardless of state's increasing ability to handle wide and complex problems the feds part and requirements continue to grow--that needs to stop. It's also true the federal government has grown and is inserting its demands into many issues that have no interstate or national impact at all-nor do they deal with individual rights--it is completely out of control.

There is no substitute for good, appropriate scale government

I agree.

Originally Posted by lynx

On the other hand, there's many issues such as water pollution regulation, healthcare, unemployment, college loans and many more which only have affects inside state lines (for the most part) and can be handled by states or by direct coordination between one or more states.

None of those are examples of such issues. Unemployment, for example, is increasingly not just national but a global scale matter - far beyond State capability. Water pollution has always been Federal, as water flows down hill, rivers and lakes are often State boundaries, aquifers and watersheds routinely cross State borders, and much water pollution is airborne. Governing the pollution of the Mississippi River watershed, Great Lakes watershed, Oglalla Aquifer, Gulf of Mexico, and so forth, is simply beyond State capability.

And so forth.

Originally Posted by lynx

The sad fact is regardless of state's increasing ability to handle wide and complex problems the feds part and requirements continue to grow-

The States have been losing the critical ability - taxation of the wealthy. That's why they can't handle health care any more, if they ever could.

Which leads to the agenda behind the propaganda campaign that now dominates Republican Party rhetoric: freeing the wealthy from the burden of taxation. Assigning funding of the governing tasks for which taxes are collected to the States greatly increases the leverage, power, and influence of the wealthy relative to the entities that must levy and collect these taxes, eases and enables the avoidance of them.

Water is sometimes an issue, and does cross lines but federal rules go way past what empirical evidence would support, beyond just joint vital water sheds--because they are typical inefficient and overly broad without consideration of local circumstances best understood and handled at the state level--both as reasonable policy and by the US Constitution. To take an extreme example, If for example I dump waste oil out of my car in death valley--it's obvious and clear it's one states problem and the fed should have absolutely nothing do with it. Even if I did it at my house to keep dust down the feds would have zero evidence it was an interestate concern and thus should have zero authority--my country's standards are higher anyhow--which is why I live here.

As for unemployment the freemarket is the best way to handle unemployment--if your state sucks you move to another one. Government assistance just slows down the correction and becomes a dis-insensitive for state and local governments to come up with viable solutions that bring more jobs. The fed level is laws such as trade legislation which effect the whole national--not doing things that translate into direct money to individuals.

Originally Posted by lynx

As for unemployment the freemarket is the best way to handle unemployment--if your state sucks you move to another one.

And if your country starts to suck from the sequential degradation of its State and regional economies, you move to another one - or more efficiently, just travel around for the jobs and send money home.

And so everybody ends up working someplace with the most attractive version of the lowest common denominator - city, State, country - of lowest minimum wage, least enforcement of workplace rules, lowest pollution standards, worst educational system, least influence of unions, lousiest infrastructure, and so forth - the smallest burden on the corporations, forced on the corporations and states alike by unregulated competition.

Because a "free market" for labor omits the costs and benefits to human life from the market exchange. Hence its fundamental role in the Republican Party delivered propaganda campaign for the never-to-be-named agenda.

Water is sometimes an issue, and does cross lines but federal rules go way past what empirical evidence would support, beyond just joint vital water sheds--because they are typical inefficient and overly broad without consideration of local circumstances best understood and handled at the state level--both as reasonable policy and by the US Constitution.

Bad Federal government is definitely a problem. There is no substitute for good Federal government of the joint vital watersheds - such as the Mississippi River watershed, which occupies about a third of the country. Get rid of the Feds, and you lose governance of it. The States of the Mississippi River watershed - ten or twenty States - cannot handle their water pollution issues themselves, especially the funding of the appropriate oversight and investment.

you move to another one - or more efficiently, just travel around for the jobs and send money home.

And? That's how this country got started and is embedded in its entire history.

LOl. I'd hardly hold up the Mississippi as a good example of federal efficiency, it's a major disaster area by nearly any measure except for maybe navigability. And yes the states could handle it even than so long as there were basic requirements set and agreed apon, instead of multiple unnecessary layers of requirements and liabilities for individuals and businesses alike.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

As for unemployment the freemarket is the best way to handle unemployment--if your state sucks you move to another one. Government assistance just slows down the correction and becomes a dis-insensitive for state and local governments to come up with viable solutions that bring more jobs. The fed level is laws such as trade legislation which effect the whole national--not doing things that translate into direct money to individuals.

Exactly the problem.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

most of those Fed -> State expenditures handle matters intrinsically larger scale than State policy can manage. Road and waterway systems, agricultural policy, public health, landscape management on watershed scales, pollution control of various kinds, cross multiple State lines as a matter of course. Regulation of corporations and labor and the like is now multinational even, let alone Federal. Having insular States collect their own taxes and attempt to manage such things within their own tiny borders is an obvious fail in the making.

State governments are much more able to resource ($), research, monitory and and base decisions on fact based data than at any time in the past. In some cases, such as interstate transportation, there's no doubt the federal gov should handle most of the standards, and perhaps even work with the states so they meet those stadards such as width of and serviceability of major highways. On the other hand, there's many issues such as water pollution regulation, healthcare, unemployment, college loans and many more which only have affects inside state lines (for the most part) and can be handled by states or by direct coordination between one or more states. The sad fact is regardless of state's increasing ability to handle wide and complex problems the feds part and requirements continue to grow--that needs to stop. It's also true the federal government has grown and is inserting its demands into many issues that have no interstate or national impact at all-nor do they deal with individual rights--it is completely out of control.

If a state solves its own economic problems, people will move there. Then they've have unemployment again. The worst is if a state starts running really good programs, say homeless shelters. Salt Lake City, UT built a whole bunch of those in the late 80's only to be overrun by homeless people who came there from all over the nation to use them.

In the larger picture of globalization, this is the more general problem with having open borders and no global government. Local governments end up having to be responsible for the failures of other governments. Using the example of SLC's homeless shelters: if every state in the USA builds good homeless shelters, then the problem of homelessness gets borne on all shoulders evenly. If one lone state does it, they end up having to shoulder all the states' homelessness problems. The other states have absolute zero incentive to then start building their own homeless shelters. The same problem occurs if we try to help out foreign economies by buying their goods tariff free. They have no incentive then to foster consumption domestically.

In Keynesian economics, paying your workers more creates a market for your goods simultaneously, which then motivates investment (as opposed to savings without investment) because wealthy people can anticipate a return on those investments. However, if one nation creates a market, and the other doesn't, then both nations split the increase in investment evenly. Just one of them doesn't have to pay for it.

Personally, I wonder if it's really American corporations who are behind this globalization push, or foreigners who are behind it, like China. With political action groups, contributions are private, so there's no way to know.

As for Republican party being behind that. I doubt it. Just republicans are more gullible than democrats. It's easier to start unsubstantiated rumors and watch them run the whole talk radio circuit and then become "reality".

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Unskilled labor is almost almost going away. This is why they're getting hammered in this last downturn and will continue to be as we automate or outsource damn near everything. That's not saying everyone needs to go to college...but we'll need an education system that get people through high school in much larger numbers than now and provides either college or a technical education.

How do you not see that skilled and unskilled workers are both losing wage just as much as each other in this economy? It's just a myth the globalists tell you, that only unskilled workers are hurt, so people who have educations and anticipate their children getting an education will be passive about it, supposing that the problem doesn't affect them. Do you just not believe all the reports of immigrants taking up educated roles at a lower salary expectation? Do you think they're exaggerated?

Originally Posted by lynx

you move to another one - or more efficiently, just travel around for the jobs and send money home.

And? That's how this country got started and is embedded in its entire history.

Until it acquired decent government and started to become prosperous - giving all that up will be a great hardship for most Americans. It's not a situation a sensible person would voluntarily inflict upon themselves.

Originally Posted by lynx

LOl. I'd hardly hold up the Mississippi as a good example of federal efficiency,

Nobody did. Not even close. The opposite would be my closest implication. Your problem with reading comprehension is difficult to allow for - how am I supposed to put things so you can't pull this shit in your responses? Is there some magic syntax you can't bollix up like that? These are mostly simple, declarative sentences.

Originally Posted by lynx

And yes the states could handle it even than so long as there were basic requirements set and agreed apon, instead of multiple unnecessary layers of requirements and liabilities for individuals and businesses alike

And of course there would be a multistate coalition body - let's call it a "union" - overseeing these basic requirements in a changing world of runoff and diking and levees and flooding and climate cycles and so forth, funded by taxation of the coalition States, with enforcement and judicial powers, and increasingly complex in the world of shipping and locks and irrigation and no-till and drain tiling and taconite and dredging depths and droughts and sediment and dead zones and fishing rights and invasive species and barge fleeting and - - eventually it's going to occur to somebody that as long as they have a government they may as well streamline the mess and make it representative.

Originally Posted by lynx

LOl. I'd hardly hold up the Mississippi as a good example of federal efficiency,

Nobody did. Not even close.

Because when you said "Water pollution has always been Federal, as water flows down hill, rivers and lakes are often State boundaries, aquifers and watersheds routinely cross State borders, and much water pollution is airborne. Governing the pollution of the Mississippi River watershed," you selected it first choice in a discussion about how the feds must do some things you meant it to counter your own argument? And when you mention pollution in the sentence immediately before using it an example we were supposed to assume somehow you didn't mean to suggest anything about effectiveness of federal control of population on that waterway?

Give me a break. Yes we might misinterpret your meaning--but take any basic communication course will make it clear to you that it's the responsibility of the sender.

Originally Posted by lynx

you selected it first choice in a discussion about how the feds must do some things you meant it to counter your own argument? And when you mention pollution in the sentence immediately before using it an example we were supposed to assume somehow you didn't mean to suggest anything about effectiveness of federal control of population on that waterway?

Uh, yes, you were supposed to read what I posted there, you know - my actual words posted, and not other words that fail to be present. When I say nothing of the effectiveness of the present or past Federal governance there, when such effectiveness is irrelevant to my point, and when in previous posts I have explicitly phrased my argument to hold regardless of whether the government under discussion was good or bad, I more or less presume that people will not invent other implications out of the blue,

let alone treat their inventions as if they were some major claim of mine, some important feature of my post.

When my entire point in a post is that abandoning the appropriate scale of government is a worthless response to bad government, that there is no substitute for good government and you can't escape the consequences of bad government by abandoning government, I don't expect to have to deal with someone claiming my examples are of good government. When the thread issue at hand is the appropriate level of government (specifically, taxation and overall policy), State or Federal, and I post on the matter of necessary scale, I don't expect people to imagine they are reading claims of effectiveness. Why would they?

I said the Mississippi watershed is an example of something that requires Federal level government, that cannot be governed at the State level. I listed some features that support that claim. The topic was appropriate level or scale of government, in reply to somebody claiming that the Fed was getting too big and the States should take over that matter. How anyone can read that as a claim that the Feds have been doing a good job governing the Mississippi watershed is beyond me. WTF?

Originally Posted by lynx

Give me a break

Just quit responding to my posts. It ain't worth it. My repetitively having to untangle your haywire while ducking your insults is never going to be a good use of this forum.

But it does provide a second view or explanatory take on the cultish aspects of the modern Republican Party - the political faction that has taken over is remarkably deaf to irony, and by implication almost completely without self-awareness. They get a notion in their brains, they don't see themselves having it - it's projected unto the world. Hence the near total lack of a sense of humor, and the inability to actually debate issues - the key step of taking one's opponent's views into account is outside their range. A self-referential fantasy world of code terms and canned justifications coercively maintained is indeed very like a cult.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by lynx

you move to another one - or more efficiently, just travel around for the jobs and send money home.

And? That's how this country got started and is embedded in its entire history.

Until it acquired decent government and started to become prosperous - giving all that up will be a great hardship for most Americans. It's not a situation a sensible person would voluntarily inflict upon themselves.

I would add that, in the early stages of the nation's history there were underpopulated areas where a person could go. The government was giving out free farm plots to anyone willing to brave the wilderness to get there. That's something you've got to consider a "special exception" in any sensible discussion about economics. There isn't always going to be a cornucopia of free resources out there just waiting to be claimed.

If we tried that strategy nowadays, the system would very quickly reach an equilibrium where there simply wasn't a "better place" to go. Worse, under that new equilibrium, nobody would have the incentive to actually exert effort to deliberately create better conditions, because they know the moment they do somebody else, who has expended no effort at all, will come and claim a share of the benefit.

It's like if there are two people who don't have houses, and one builds a house. If there is no way to prevent the second guy from deciding to live in that house with the first guy, then both of them will share the house, splitting the benefit of the first person't effort between them. One guy did all the work. Both guys each get half the benefit. If we look at this in terms of return on investment, that means the return has to be a full 200% in order for the venture to be profitable for the first guy so he'd want to build a house in the first place. How often does any venture yield a 200% return? What's more likely to happen is no houses get built anywhere in the society.

Originally Posted by lynx

LOl. I'd hardly hold up the Mississippi as a good example of federal efficiency,

Nobody did. Not even close. The opposite would be my closest implication. Your problem with reading comprehension is difficult to allow for - how am I supposed to put things so you can't pull this shit in your responses? Is there some magic syntax you can't bollix up like that? These are mostly simple, declarative sentences.

I think the personal attacks are getting out of hand on this thread, and Lynx has done well by not stooping to that level to return insult for insult.

However, the two of you are discussing apples and oranges (they just happen to come from the same basket, hence the confusion.) The small size of a state government prevents a lot of pork and unnecessary rules that a large government body like the Fed gets plagued by, but infighting between the states over which state ought to bear the greatest portion of the costs, and smallest portion of the benefits in managing a common resource would lead to it's own problems, problems which are 100% absent in the Fed, because it represents a combined group of people that is bearing all the costs and reaping all of the benefits.

When my entire point in a post is that abandoning the appropriate scale of government is a worthless response to bad government, that there is no substitute for good government and you can't escape the consequences of bad government by abandoning government, I don't expect to have to deal with someone claiming my examples are of good government.

Why? If your point "is abandoning the appropriate scale of government" than in most conventions of persuasive argument, one would expect examples linked to the argument. And behold that expectation was met, when you put up pollution and the Mississippi as your example in the very next sentence and paragraph. And are now complaining (and insulting others) when someone finds your example wanting. The construction of the paragraph and context of where and how you brought pollution and the Mississippi into the paragraph resulted in the misunderstanding. Perhaps next time you'll add a text feature, such as "(perhaps not the best example)," separate it into another paragraph or section to delineate you're switching to a new argument, or provide readers some other indication that you're going to another thought before you get ruffled for them misunderstanding your writing.

--

Originally Posted by Kojax

The small size of a state government prevents a lot of pork and unnecessary rules that a large government body like the Fed gets plagued by, but infighting between the states over which state ought to bear the greatest portion of the costs, and smallest portion of the benefits in managing a common resource would lead to it's own problems, problems which are 100% absent in the Fed, because it represents a combined group of people that is bearing all the costs and reaping all of the benefits.

Well said. The Great Lakes and Gulf oil wells came to mind.

Originally Posted by kojax

I think the personal attacks are getting out of hand on this thread, and Lynx has done well by not stooping to that level to return insult for insult.

That guy has been stooped to "that level" for months - lower, actually, since mine are accurate and motivated by comprehension of his posting.

Since the Aquatic Ape thread, I have realized that the pretense of actual discussion with his type of poster on this forum is simply not worth maintaining - they will never read or comprehend my posting, never follow any argument I make or bother to deal honestly with the ideas and meanings involved, never lay off the insults, and never engage in actual, reasonable discussion with me. My choice is how to respond to this fact of the forum.

That is relevant to this thread, btw. Once the nature of the Republican Party as described in the OP somewhat lamely- its identity and operation as a propaganda spreader for its supporting corporate faction, its closer resemblance to a cult of some kind rather than a political coalition, its apparent obliviousness to its own behavior and nature and consequences, etc. - is recognized, the question becomes how it got that way, and how it is supported in this nature. A lot of people have signed on to the Republican Party, eyes open, just as it is.

And the behavior of these posters here seems to provide possible clues. These people seem to be defending, or at least accepting in its own terms, that Party's mission and conduct - describing it in its own marketing vocabulary, treating it as one of two legitimate "sides" of a national political debate, talking about "moderate Republicans" vs "extremists" (as in "extremists of both Parties"), and similar. They are contributors to the propaganda operations, in other words, and seemingly oblivious to what they are doing - they can't follow the arguments and criticisms of the beast, apparently because they can't recognize the premises. They literally can't see them. The assumptions grounding the arguments do not exist in their worldview, and that prevents the argument from taking place - by no coincidence, to the benefit of whatever Party would be harmed by actual discussion and reality based argument.

Example from history: it was once impossible to discuss the US invasion and military occupation of South Vietnam in a public forum. The reason was that the necessary concepts of the US having invaded and occupied a foreign country, those assumptions available to be a frame of discussion, did not exist in the minds of the public.

Case in point:

When my entire point in a post is that abandoning the appropriate scale of government is a worthless response to bad government, that there is no substitute for good government and you can't escape the consequences of bad government by abandoning government, I don't expect to have to deal with someone claiming my examples are of good government.

Why? If your point "is abandoning the appropriate scale of government" than in most conventions of persuasive argument, one would expect examples linked to the argument. And behold that expectation was met, when you put up pollution and the Mississippi as your example in the very next sentence and paragraph. And are now complaining (and insulting others) when someone finds your example wanting

Now how does one respond to this? The poster simply does not see the argument right in front of them, has not read the actual words of the posts they are responding to, is imposing a set of assumptions and premises of their own as if they were automatic reality. The poster has already been corrected once. It would take a couple of pages to go all the way back and untangle that shit, and none of it would be relevant to the thread topic. The topic becomes what's wrong with that poster, rather than the appropriate scale of government as it pertains to the Republican Party's influences and actions.

And that pattern repeats in one thread after another. One campaign after another.

The entire worldview involved in that kind of post prevents reasonable discussion of any issue. The only short response is to point out to the poster that they are not reading or following the posts they are replying to, not dealing with the actual arguments and meanings of other people's posting, and that their replies are fundamentally dishonest, in bad faith. That makes no one happy, but it's short and allows a return to the thread topics etc.

That doesn't work in the national political arena. The ban threat there is serious, involves transfer of real power to people who do not have to give it up afterwards.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by kojax

I think the personal attacks are getting out of hand on this thread, and Lynx has done well by not stooping to that level to return insult for insult.

That guy has been stooped to "that level" for months - lower, actually, since mine are accurate and motivated by comprehension of his posting.

Since the Aquatic Ape thread, I have realized that the pretense of actual discussion with his type of poster on this forum is simply not worth maintaining - they will never read or comprehend my posting, never follow any argument I make or bother to deal honestly with the ideas and meanings involved, never lay off the insults, and never engage in actual, reasonable discussion with me. My choice is how to respond to this fact of the forum.

Haven't followed that one in a long while, so I don't know.

And the behavior of these posters here seems to provide possible clues. These people seem to be defending, or at least accepting in its own terms, that Party's mission and conduct - describing it in its own marketing vocabulary, treating it as one of two legitimate "sides" of a national political debate, talking about "moderate Republicans" vs "extremists" (as in "extremists of both Parties"), and similar. They are contributors to the propaganda operations, in other words, and seemingly oblivious to what they are doing - they can't follow the arguments and criticisms of the beast, apparently because they can't recognize the premises. They literally can't see them. The assumptions grounding the arguments do not exist in their worldview, and that prevents the argument from taking place - by no coincidence, to the benefit of whatever Party would be harmed by actual discussion and reality based argument.

You should be glad there even are any Republicans on this forum. Otherwise there would be nobody to debate these things with.

Instead of getting mad at them for using logic you don't approve of, why not learn from it? You can extrapolate that whatever logical mistakes this forum's Republican posters are making are likely to be similar to the mistakes the Republicans around the nation are making. Once you've diagnosed the problem, you can try and find a solution or explanation that will make sense to others who are plagued with the same misconceptions.

In any event, a good debater uses their opponent's own logic to make points whenever possible, or points out the flaws in their logical process when that process is hopelessly flawed. This is a good resource if you need to dismantle their logic itself:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Otherwise, if their logic is valid, then it's presumptuous to assume they're failing to make a fair attempt at understanding you.

Case in point:

When my entire point in a post is that abandoning the appropriate scale of government is a worthless response to bad government, that there is no substitute for good government and you can't escape the consequences of bad government by abandoning government, I don't expect to have to deal with someone claiming my examples are of good government.

Why? If your point "is abandoning the appropriate scale of government" than in most conventions of persuasive argument, one would expect examples linked to the argument. And behold that expectation was met, when you put up pollution and the Mississippi as your example in the very next sentence and paragraph. And are now complaining (and insulting others) when someone finds your example wanting

Now how does one respond to this? The poster simply does not see the argument right in front of them, has not read the actual words of the posts they are responding to, is imposing a set of assumptions and premises of their own as if they were automatic reality. The poster has already been corrected once. It would take a couple of pages to go all the way back and untangle that shit, and none of it would be relevant to the thread topic. The topic becomes what's wrong with that poster, rather than the appropriate scale of government as it pertains to the Republican Party's influences and actions.

Your objections show that you were oblivious to Lynx's point, that smaller governments are more efficient in general than larger governments are, which might support allowing individual state governments to manage their own sections of the river because their governments are smaller. Don't be a teapot calling the kettle black.

In this specific case, I'm pretty sure Federal management of the Mississippi would fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution because the river would likely be used for the shipping of goods over state lines.

Originally Posted by kojax

Haven't followed that one in a long while, so I don't know.

So why say that? Is your amnesia supposed to mean something? I recall it very well, and you can easily review it if you want to post on the subject. It was enlightening, for me, and the lesson has been reinforced many times since.

Originally Posted by kojax

You should be glad there even are any Republicans on this forum. Otherwise there would be nobody to debate these things with.

What debates? The impossibility of actually debating with people who post like that is exactly the problem. Do you think what has been happening with this garbage is a debate !?

Originally Posted by kojax

Instead of getting mad at them for using logic you don't approve of, why not learn from it?

Wow. Uh, lessee; I did mention learning something from that - what was your term? Oh yeah: "logic" - and I'm not going to forget it. You are reinforcing the lesson unnecessarily. You needn't bother, really.

Originally Posted by kojax

Your objections show that you were oblivious to Lynx's point, that smaller governments are more efficient in general than larger governments are,

And I'm not supposed to get pissed off now?

Look, quit telling me what I'm supposed to be posting, instead of what I actually post, OK? Lynx's "point" was completely irrelevant to my post. I happen to agree with it, as far as it went, but it wasn't what I was talking about, at all. It made no sense, it had nothing to do with my post, and the personal attacks accompanying it were - and are, right here, from you - offensive.

I mean, look at this:

which might support allowing individual state governments to manage their own sections of the river because their governments are smaller.

My entire point was based on the observation - supported with multiple examples - that they are too small for many things. It doesn't matter whether smaller is more efficient if smaller is too small, see? To repeat, for the fifth time: there is no substitute for good government. You can't swap bad government for no government (too small to govern the Mississippi watershed, say) and get anywhere. You have to have good government, at whatever scale you intend to govern. If it's a big scale, your difficulties multiply, because big governments tend to be less efficient, but simply refusing to govern at the appropriate scale will not solve that problem. What is so difficult about this?

Originally Posted by kojax

In any event, a good debater uses their opponent's own logic to make points whenever possible,

And when I think it's worth getting banned again, I'll give that a try. Or are you that oblivious to what my "opponent's own logic" has actually been?

Meanwhile, as observed before, the whole scene here makes an interesting start as an illustration of how the media operations of this Republican cult business work. As evidence of the general accuracy of the OP, we can file it under "maybe useful", eh?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by kojax

Haven't followed that one in a long while, so I don't know.

So why say that? Is your amnesia supposed to mean something? I recall it very well, and you can easily review it if you want to post on the subject. It was enlightening, for me, and the lesson has been reinforced many times since.

Ok. If you're thinking of the same thread I'm thinking of, then it was a while ago and the thread was closed. And I remember that I objected quite a lot to seeing it closed because it was a lot of fun, and I was learning quite a lot about anthropology in general from following the various posters' links, even if the main topic itself wasn't exactly moving in a fluid direction.

But that's not a question of Lynx's posting tactics. It's a question of how he chose to moderate. I hope you'll forgive my confusion. I didn't see any problems with how people were arguing in that thread.

Originally Posted by kojax

You should be glad there even are any Republicans on this forum. Otherwise there would be nobody to debate these things with.

What debates? The impossibility of actually debating with people who post like that is exactly the problem. Do you think what has been happening with this garbage is a debate !?

It's part of the real world. There actually exist over 100 million Republicans in the USA, and most of their reasoning processes are a great deal poorer than the ones used by the few representatives of that group which may be found on this site. At least the ones on this site articulate themselves well so I can follow their logic enough to make sense of it. Naturally I perceive there are failings in the way that logic flows..... but you know...... I see failings of logic on both sides of the fence. I also see failings in my own logic of a few months ago. Probably a few months in the future I will see failings in the logic I'm using right now.

Like I said: teapot calling kettle black. Just because the teapot is black doesn't mean the kettle isn't too. They both are black, and in this metaphor that's a bad thing, but hardly anything to get angry about. Screaming isn't going to fix it.

I mean, look at this:

which might support allowing individual state governments to manage their own sections of the river because their governments are smaller.

My entire point was based on the observation - supported with multiple examples - that they are too small for many things. It doesn't matter whether smaller is more efficient if smaller is too small, see? To repeat, for the fifth time: there is no substitute for good government. You can't swap bad government for no government (too small to govern the Mississippi watershed, say) and get anywhere. You have to have good government, at whatever scale you intend to govern. If it's a big scale, your difficulties multiply, because big governments tend to be less efficient, but simply refusing to govern at the appropriate scale will not solve that problem. What is so difficult about this?

That would have been a good argument to make instead of just getting mad.

I just want to see this thread get back on track because I'm enjoying it. It started out kind of on the deep end, but it's been gaining credibility as it goes. If you degenerate it down to the level of personal attacks, I'm going to have to hope the mods decide to suspend you instead of close the thread. Not out of malice toward you, but out of affection for the thread.

Originally Posted by kojax

In any event, a good debater uses their opponent's own logic to make points whenever possible,

And when I think it's worth getting banned again, I'll give that a try. Or are you that oblivious to what my "opponent's own logic" has actually been?

Meanwhile, as observed before, the whole scene here makes an interesting start as an illustration of how the media operations of this Republican cult business work. As evidence of the general accuracy of the OP, we can file it under "maybe useful", eh?

I haven't seen Lynx make personal attacks against anyone. No.

Do you understand that that's the whole issue here? No matter how you feel about a particular topic, this whole public forum thing stops being fun if someone starts taking things too personally. If your goal is to affect real social change..... this might not be the best place to do it. Go join a senatorial campaign or something, or volunteer for Sierra Club. We're just people talking here. It's just idle chatter.