Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Neoliberal or Neoconservative-Who knows the difference?

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 25, 2012, 9:14 a.m. EST by notaneoliberal (2269)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Neoliberalism: Neoconservatism Without a Smirk It has become increasingly obvious that the only difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush is that the famous Bush smirk has been replaced by the Obama smile. The neoconservatism of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Bill O’Reilly has given way to the neoliberalism of Bill Clinton, Timothy Geithner, Bernie Sanders, and Chris Matthews. The differences between neoliberalism and neoconservatism are similar to the differences between Coke and Pepsi, virtually nil.

Neoconservatism is best defined by its foreign policy agenda which includes full spectrum dominance, imperial overstretch, nuclear primacy, the right of pre-emptive strike, and unconditional support for the State of Israel. Although neoliberals are much less bellicose in their rhetoric than their neoconservative counterparts, they passively acquiesce to the neocon foreign policy paradigm. They do little or nothing to end the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the annihilation of Palestine carried out by our close ally Israel. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo was little short of a global call to arms couched in the language of the doctrine of “just war.” Although neocons make it abundantly clear that they are military hawks, most neoliberals are closet hawks as well.

Consider the case of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the darling of the Left, who pretends to be a socialist, which he is not. Not only does Sanders support all military appropriation bills and military aid to Israel, but he is currently promoting the opening of a satellite facility of the Sandia Corporation in Vermont. The Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Company, develops, creates, maintains, and evaluates nuclear weapons systems. Sandia’s roots go back to the Manhattan Project in World War II. Just what peace loving Vermonters need, a nuclear weapons manufacturer located in their own backyard.

Both neolibs and neocons are apologists for globalization and are steeped in the ideology that bigger, faster, and more high-tech make better. In their heart of hearts neolibs and neocons know that only the federal government can solve all of our problems, failing to realize that the federal government is the problem. Both embrace corporate socialism, socialism for the rich, and the social welfare state while pretending to be opposed to publicly financed social welfare. It’s all about people of the lie.

Neoliberals pretend to be concerned about inequities in the distribution of income and wealth. Neoconservatives make it abundantly clear that they couldn’t care less.

Both neolibs and neocons are authoritarian statists each with their own definition of political correctness. Politically correct neolibs are expected to be pro-abortion, pro-gay-lesbian, pro-affirmative action, pro-Israel, pro-gun control, anti-clerical, pro-big government, and pro-American Empire. Anyone who does not conform to this litany or who associates with those who do not, is at risk of being attacked by a left wing truth squad such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and accused of the likes of homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, religious fundamentalism, or even hate crimes. Politically correct neocons are more likely to be pro-life, anti-gay-lesbian, anti-affirmative action, pro-Israel, anti-gun control, pro-clerical, pro-big government, and pro-Empire. Both are vehemently opposed to secession.

Above all, what neoliberals and neoconservatives have in common is that they are technofascists. Benito Mussolini defined fascism as “the merger of state and corporate power.” Technofascism is the melding of corporate, state, military, and technological power by a handful of political elites which enables them to manipulate and control the population through the use of money, markets, media and the Internet.

Neoliberals and neoconservatives alike march to the beat of the same drummer – the largest, wealthiest, most powerful, most materialistic, most racist, most militaristic, most violent empire of all time.

Ultimately the differences between neoliberalism and neoconservatism are purely cosmetic. You may either have your technofascism with a smirk or you can have it with a smile.

Imagine…Free Vermont

Thomas H. Naylor

February 16, 2010

This entry is filed under Essays.

Denmark http://www.denmark.dk/ Finland http://www.finland.fi/ Norway http://www.norway.org/ Sweden http://www.sweden.se/ Switzerland http://www.swissworld.org/ Radio Free Vermont Bringing you locally grown music from the Green Mountains! www.radiofreevermont.org

108 Comments

108 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

I echo other posters who commend this excellent 'forum-post'. I would also add that both "Neo-Liberal" AND "Neo-Con" are both essentially right-wing ideologies.

"Neo-Liberalism" is a faux-construct concerned with 'economic idealism' centred on fallacious notions of "free markets" - which were actually first formulated in the days and at the height of The British Empire - which actually depended on 'closed & captured markets' with huge barriers to entry, backed by a Navy !!

"Neo-Con" is a far more recent but equally pernicious 'school of thought' which is far more concerned with Aggressive Foreign Policy and US Imperial Hegemony. The term was first attached to erstwhile 'leftists' (some even ex-Trotskyites) who turned their backs on 'Leftist Internationalism' or 'Socialism' and then with a virulent anti-soviet communism - instead embraced US Exceptionlism. Some key figures to consider are 'Leo Strauss', 'Irving Kristol' ('William Kristol's Dad), Richard Pipes and of course 'PNAC'.

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 2 years ago

great videos and very informative read. Do you know if these PNAC documents have been available since there inception? Have I just not been looking in the right places?

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

I can't give you precise answers to your questions but I append five further links :

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/video_pages_flash/politics/misc_neocon_globalist/wolfowitz_pnac_nph.php

The final link immediately above, includes a 3:30m video which speaks volumes in the matter of 'PNAC'.

e tenebris. lux ...

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Thanks shadz. It was the similarity that I was trying to draw attention to, in spite of differing rhetoric.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Yep 'nan', I've got 'your six' on that. These days, 'Neo-Liberalism' ; "Washington Consensus' ; World Bank/IMF 'Freemarketism' is being pushed by 'Neo-Con' ; 'Neo-Feudalist' ; 'Paleo-Imperialists', who are using 'Economics' to try to export 'democracy' at the point of a gun. Please try to see those videos. The shorter 'Neo-Con' is shocking and the longer 'Kochs Exposed' (ahem) doc. will ... well watch it & see ;-)

multum in parvo ...

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I will watch those, although I'm already pretty familiar with Charlie and Davie. http://andrewboyd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/koch-bros-its-the-evil-thing.jpg

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

"Mitt Romney Blurts Out The Truth About Neo-conservatism", by Linda McQuaig :

Also 'nan', thanx for your very amusing visual. 'Expose The Kochs' !!

in vino veritas ? lol ...

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Yea, "...they think they're entitled to food.." Mitt said. What audacity those poor folk have. Maybe "Let em eat cake" will come out of his mouth soon.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'Mitt for B(r)ains' doesn't know his (x) from his eL_bow but please see this comment & thread :

fiat lux ...

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thanx for this really great link. It is a substantive and very interesting read which I have saved and will revisit again in future. Thanx again and I also attach this wee link : http://tinyurl.com/ which may be useful to you and others from a more practical 'pov' ;-)

pax et lux ...

[-] 3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Great post.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Thanks. Good to see all are not blind.

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1274) from Fredericksburg, TX 2 years ago

Neo Liberal, refers to the psuedo revival of the liberal economics of Adam Smith, by Hayek and von Mises, the delusions of Ayn Rand and the cynical hypocrisy of Milton Friedman. Reagan and the Bushes were neo liberals, not all the so called liberal politicians mostly in the Democratic Party. Clinton, Carter and such always leaned conservative but don't deserve the neo liberal label as much as Republican shills of the rich.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Sorry AG, it's not me who needs to look it up. I'm very clear on the difference between social liberalism and neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is about "free market" economics. When Democrats favor NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and more, that's neoliberalism.. Look it up. Throwing out some useless rhetoric and supporting ancillary minor social issues, to convince "the faithful" that they are "on your side", does not deceive me.

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1274) from Fredericksburg, TX 2 years ago

It wasn't clear to me that you understood the difference. Did you read the part about Ayn Rand and the rest of the neo liberal economics or just the 'so called' liberal politicians. The latter are more conservative than most Democrats. And you didn't mention any of the neo liberal conservatives. They are the most likely suspects in every case. Why is that? I don't need to look it up. I also have no need to skew the facts, because I'm sincere and have no desire to deceive or divert attention from the real criminals in America.

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

The gist of the article was that the position of the right, Republican neocons, is "in your face". The article mentions George Bush, and his famous "smirk". It is obvious that they are pro-neoliberal. It is the other side that tends to be more duplicitous.PS (If you take a look at my user name, you might expect me to know what neoliberal means.)

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

This comment pertains only to those in America not those in foreign countries, who (luckily for most of them) have a system of proportional representation:

Pushing the idea that both parties are equally corrupt in a two party system is not only inaccurate, it is a proposition created to disempower all Americans. It is not so hard to conceive that there are differing factions within the existing parties, and that therefore the battle must become a struggle for control of one of those two parties. This is no different from being a struggle between two parties except to those who don't do nuance.

Our opponents (i.e., the .001%) exploit this situation endlessly in the hopes we are too stupid to understand that level of "complexity".

Could we create a viable third party? No harm in running alternative party candidates to find out how far that can go, but probably not at the federal level in this idiotic winner take all system, open to bribery, when we are opposed by those who control about 93% of the nation's wealth!

Therefore, we must deal with the system as it is until we have sufficient political power to reform it. No one can convince me there is any other Viable way forward at this juncture. And so all debate along these lines is simply putting the cart before the horse in regard to the only thing that matters in politics, access; and therefore serves those who would render the American left, of which Occupy is a part, powerless.

This is the misconception that the .001% are pushing hardest here through their agents, because it has worked for them very well in the past.

The answer then, whether we like it or not, for now, is to push the existing two party system to the left. The good news? We got a good start in the last election. Only engagement, relentless engagement In The Existing System will get us to a point where we have more sweeping options regarding political freedom. Apathy and confusion are the enemy.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Let me start with the part I can agree with. "Could we create a viable third party? No harm in running alternative party candidates to find out how far that can go, but probably not at the federal level in this idiotic winner take all system, open to bribery, when we are opposed by those who control about 93% of the nation's wealth! Therefore, we must deal with the system as it is until we have sufficient political power to reform it. No one can convince me there is any other Viable way forward at this juncture. And so all debate along these lines is simply putting the cart before the horse in regard to the only thing that matters in politics, access; and therefore serves those who would render the American left, of which Occupy is a part, powerless." This seems to be a reasonable assertion. Now on this- "Pushing the idea that both parties are equally corrupt in a two party system is not only inaccurate, it is a proposition created to disempower all Americans." I don't see that the article was referring to corruption, per se, but rather economic policy and as it stated “the merger of state and corporate power.” Whether or not you wish to describe this as corruption or not, I leave to your judgement. In these arenas, I find the two parties, or at least the leadership, to be disturbingly similar, if not precisely equal. Note also that the article did not mention parties, but rather individuals.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

You didn't address the substance of what I was saying. What we need is a vision of how to go forward, and I don't see that being explicated here.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

I felt no need to separately address the issue. I agreed with your suggestion that the most expeditious way forward is to try to attempt to influence the existing political power structure, if I understood you correctly. I think that the article was just a wake up call as to what we are up against. Let us not become complacent when a candidate is elected who claims to be one thing but whose actions say another.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Very good, thanks.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

They are both libertarian on economic issues. Funny how the libertarians here bash "neoliberals", I don't think they got the memo.

The libertarian conspiracy nuts are right about one thing: Neoliberals and Neocons are both flawed. They just get it backwards, because the problem with both is that they favor libertarian economic policies.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Yes, they all converge with the free market ideology.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Policy_implications

This sounds like a line from the playbook used by the libertarian trolls on this forum:

"Fiscal policy: Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can have only a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy."

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Neoliberalism has been described as an extreme form of libertarianism. I like this explanation of neoliberalism;
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Nice link. So, ironically, the "left-right paradigm" that libertarians on this forum complain about is actually a "libertarian paradigm": both neoconservatives and neoliberals subscribe to libertarian economic philosophies.

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

You got it.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So now libertarians, the guys I know from Occupy, are for rampant gov size and spending, and a vast military intervention around the globe?

Where do you guys get this crap?

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Ah, how you overlook the finer points. Your lizard friends, whom you met at Occupy Wauchula, share the same economic principles as Hayek, and Friedman, and all of the great lizardarians in history.

That is, you oppose any govt intervention, because "markets know best".

Yes, there are slight variations in lizardry, with Bernanke who favors QE3 and similar techniques (which were invented solely avoid the inevitable fiscal stimulus), and the hardcore nutjobs who want to close the Fed down altogether. But you are all variations on a reptilian theme, cut from the very same cloth of "the gubmint can't do nuthin' right!", "if we run up the debt any more, we're all gonna be speakin' Chinese!", and my personal favorite, "if only we would have left things to the market, a crisis like this could have been averted."

Go back and read the article on neoliberalism again. Notice the names of prominent libertarian economists like Hayek and Friedman. Notice how Tony Blair and Bill Clinton applied their same lizard-think. Read, read until you unlearn the lizard lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Whats up with all the lizard talk? Between you and Shooz with his "Bircher" lines, its no wonder nothing gets accomplished in congress.

So you put college age libertarians on the same scale as the globalist slime?

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

I am not a neoliberal, so I doubt I could ever get elected to congress.

I put college age libertarians in the same category as women who stay with the men who beat them. Except for rich college age libertarians, who are more like women who stay with men who beat other women.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

How do you define Libertarian? How do you define free market economics? Do you believe markets and corporations self regulate?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The liberatrians I know simply want the gov out of their professional business and want their civil liberties back.

I personally believe we need things like the EPA and SEC (although in their current form they are just puppets).

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

That sounds reasonable. The fact that you recognize there are some regulations necessary, removes you from the most extreme forms. Libertarianism has a lot of permutations.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I personally believe all the positions for those regulatory bodies should be voted on, not appointed by sold out puppets.

But honestly, Im not sure it would make any difference.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

OMG!!!

Somebody else finally gets it!!!!

Consider applying the term neolibe(R)tarian. It's scalable beyond boxed in nationalist thinking.

They are indeed Worldwide.

[-] -1 points by GroverPledge (0) 1 year ago

There is nothing libertarian about regulating all your competition out of existence with the help of the federal governement.

Corporatists. Get used to hearing that word.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Unless you're the founders of modern libe(R)tarianism.

The fabulous Kochs!!!!

Libe(R)tarian to the core and proud of all they pain they cause...world wide!!!

[-] -1 points by GroverPledge (0) 1 year ago

I love how conservative, liberal, and liberatarian have all been molested by the media into things they never meant.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You say that like the Kochs didn't found the libe(R)tarian party along with many of their buddies of the oil corporation CEO types.

Because YES, that's exactly how that happened.

Nothing at all to do with the media.

Does that mean that you are the one that's molesting something or other?

[-] 0 points by GroverPledge (0) 1 year ago

Those parties have been around long before the Koch brothers came about.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Um.........'71'.

[-] 2 points by schwartz (20) from Moosic, PA 2 years ago

It's about time. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 2 years ago

great post and great comments :)

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Thanks Justin.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

your only hope is to vote

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I'm not against voting. I do think people need to to look critically and skeptically at who and what they are voting for.

[-] 0 points by GroverPledge (0) 1 year ago

The main difference is how they market themselves to their audience.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

labels are the way the un-reasoning lemmings make decisions


all ItalianAmericans are in the mafia
all snakes are scary
all politicians are crooks
all HispanicAmericans are illegal
all ice cream is yummy
all AfricanAmericans are on welfare
all JewishAmericans are crooks


categorizing and labeling - black and white - is easy
thinking and reasonining - gray - is hard


are YOU a "black and white" or a reasoning thinker ?


[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

All of your posts are based on labels

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You do understand that labels are the basis of language?

That without them, there is NO valid communication?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

That's not what we're talking about dude.

An example of what we're talking about being - if you don't like Obama that means you are a republican who loves Mitt Romney.

Another example being - if you vote for Obama you are a socialist and you are waging a war on religion.

That kind of labeling is what we're talking about.

Here's a good example - http://occupywallst.org/forum/it-is-a-flood-of-newbie-troll-crap/

another one - http://occupywallst.org/forum/are-you-too-stupid-or-just-too-ignorant-to-know-th/

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The problem here, is that the labels used are unrefined, therefore inaccurate.

Help me out here. Suppose I vote for Obama.

What would be the accurate label to hang on me?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Well seeing what you post about, I'd tell you that you are not voting for someone who best represents you.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Are you afraid to label me?

There is NO one other than me, that can "best represent" me.

That's just a simple fact that we all seem to learn to live with.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Do you support having 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and spending billions and billions of more tax dollars over there?

Do you support illegal drone strikes and then drone striking rescuers?

Do you support giving unlimited resources to Wall Street?

Do you support Indefinite Detention Laws?

Do you support the Patriot Act and FISA bills that have been abused to create the largest unconstitutional spy network of American citizens?

Do you support when a candidate is accepting money from banks that you're protesting?

Do you support drug laws that imprison more non-violent citizens than any other country on the planet? Laws that create a black market and allow gangs to flourish?

Do you support a potential war with Iran and claiming a "WMD" scare?

Do you support dropping bombs in 4 countries next year?

Do you support the TSA groping children in airports and potentially expanding the TSA to railways and more?

Do you support the DOJ letting Goldman Sachs off the hook?

Do you support putting Wall Street in their administrations?

Do you support appointing Bush's Ben Bernanke to the Federal Reserve?

Do you support the trillions in which the Fed has given to Wall Street to continue their reign over our economy and our government?

Do you support extending tax cuts for the rich instead of utilizing a veto and telling Congress to try again?

Do you support a foreign policy and civil liberties record that the ACLU has called "Disgusting" ?

Do you support the suppression of evidence of torture that could have lead to a prosecution against Bush, Cheney, and the CIA for war crimes?

Because both Obama and Romney support all of this or are doing nothing to fight this.

Do you know who doesn't support this and is running for president this year? Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, and Gary Johnson (although Gary doesn't really represent you either)

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Are you trying to overwhelm me?

It's been like this for decades. I've spoken to people about most of it for most of those decades.

I usually was called a liberal in a derogatory manner.

What those at the bottom of your list would be able to do about ANY of it, is unproven.

Did you forget that I was the one who started a thread asking that they be included in ANY debate, and pointed out the policy changes that allows the networks not to?

BTW. When I explained in a nonpartisan manner why I believe these foreign occupations continue, I was vehemently accused of being a war "moonger". Yes, the misspelling is accurate

I quit commenting on the subject at that point.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/repelicants-dont-want-no-stinkni-democracy/

You want to talk about what is happening in my State?

Read the above and get back to me.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

What a convenient way for you to avoid the issues previously mentioned

"both Obama and Romney support all of this or are doing nothing to fight this."

I'm not saying you don't speak out against these issues. I'm saying your candidate of choice does not share your opinion on these issues.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

No. It wasn't a matter of convenience.

I was attempting to avoid all of your conjecture for something more reality based.

Did you really expect me to address some 16 items all at once?

There is not, nor will ever be a candidate for anything that will share my opinion on much of anything.

The situation is the same for you, believe it, or not.

I know that folks around here seem to think that what goes on in the States is inconsequential.

Follow the link and read about some reality and tell me you think.

I think these are the acts of neolibe(R)tarians.

It's what they want for your future too.

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

As austerity is the enemy, the least lizardarian candidate, of the two electable candidates, is the right choice.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Am I a "black and white" thinker? I try not to be. saying; labels are the way un-reasoning lemmings make decisions" does not seem to apply. The human brain has the ability to recognize patterns. This has proven to be a useful attribute. Recognizing that people who exhibit certain sets of behaviors, such as the those that characterize neoliberalism, has nothing to do with characterizing an ethnic group, a genus or species of organisms, or an entire group such as all politicians. Only those that exhibit the characteristics that define the group are in the group, not all others that happen to fall into another subset. Furthermore, the tendency to to label, with labels that are far less specifically defined, is sort of what this subject speaks to. There seems to be a contingent here that likes to assert- all Republicans are bad- all Democrats are good. I don't think it's that black and white.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't think ALL republicans are bad, & I KNOW all Dems are not good.

But I believe ALL our problems have their roots in conservative policies and only get passed when dem pols betray progressive principles to vote for them.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

It is the betrayal by Dems that we must be aware of. We already know where the Rs are coming from.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They grand bargain/Social Security cut is comin up next!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I would vote for R: Lincoln or TR
I would vote against D: George Wallace

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I can't argue with those choices. What I do think a lot of progressives are missing, is that Clinton and Obama do not stand for what FDR stood for.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Dennis Kucinich stands for what FDR stood for and he actually tried to impeach Bush.

But in 2008 people wanted to vote for who the tv propaganda said they should vote for

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Sad but true.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Exactly - no
But both want to raise taxes on the 1% and the corps

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

True, and I'm for that, but it doesn't help the working class much if they still have no job.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

government cannot create jobs WITHOUT raising taxes
we can't raise taxes if the House is owned by the 1% [ and grover ] we can't get them out without VOTING

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Trade policy has much more to do with the job situation than tax policy.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

How can YOU or I change trade policy ?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28464) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Protest/Petition just like ending corpoRAT personhood.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

It will take more than two of us. I did send a email to the white house, asking the president why he promised to amend or eliminate NAFTA in his campaign but did no such thing, rather he has expanded FTAs, Making things much worse. All we can do, it seems, is to increase awareness, or try to organize for 2016 for someone like Kucinich, and good congressmen in the meantime. Protesting in the streets can also make a difference. When Obama says he's concerned about jobs, but then pushes the TPP, we need to call him out on it.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I can't disagree with that post, but getting the money OUT is still the easiest path to victory.
Specifically - NAFTA & &FRA & TPP are not a Democratic or republiclan plot. They are contracts bought and paid for.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28464) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I hope you shared your letter with the public for their consideration.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I can't sat that I did, but it was very brief and to the point. It was a long time back. I got no response other than I've been stuck on a campaign spam list. It was pre-OWS.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28464) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah they send me requests for my money too - I ignore those - actually I copied off the 1st request onto another letter to the government and said that if they wanted support - that the best way to get it would be to start demonstrably working for the people - told em they really would not need the money in that event. I copy these letters and post em here for review as I also post them out on social media - to get the people thinking.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Reply to; I try to advocate...I think that's a sound idea.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

If they were to get 10 million letters or emails it would be harder to ignore. If politicians knew their career depended on responding with appropriate action, the would do so.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28464) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I try to advocate that everyone write to the government - to all of their representatives and to post those letters on the internet for others to see and consider. If we could ignite a fire storm of letters to all of the officials in government - it would be awesome. Not just letters of complaint but also letters pointing out sane and common sense things that the government should be doing. These letters all shared and circulated to the public as food for thought as well as reasons to get involved.

[-] 1 points by Shenonymous (3) 1 year ago

Aw, come on...all politicians are crooks! Except for Bernie Sanders
5 Yups

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Sherrod Brown? Elizabeth Warren? beware the word "all" or "none" they are lazy, easy words

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

"neo" means opposite of.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

No. "Neo" means new.

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

I am, of course not referring to it's dictionary definition but to the phenomena that occurs when "neo" gets itself attached to two noble political traditions. It turns them into forces working towards the opposite of their namesakes goals.

Where once the traditional conservative path was neutrality ,non-intervention and the Republic, the neoconservative seeks intrigue, war and empire.

Liberal was once synonymous with helping the poor, democracy and social justice... How does that square with what they've actually wrought with the global Free Trade regime?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

I agree that the neoconservative has diverged greatly from conservatism. The "liberal" in neoliberal, however, refers to liberal economics, not social liberalism. Liberal, or Classical economics is roughly the same as Lassiez Faire, or "hands off" economics. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

I see little in resemblance between classical laissez faire economics and the kind of corporatism that neoliberalism promotes. It seems more like it's antithesis.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Ever hear of the East India Tea Company?

[-] 1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Product of an empire - not a republic.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

The result of Lassez Faire capitalism. Have you heard about the robber barons of the so called Gilded Age?

[-] 1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

It was a royaly chartered monopoly, not free market competition. And I'll take the robber barons of the old school over the bloodless beurocrats and boys from Harvard we have running things today.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Funny, a lot of people seem to think you're an irritating fuck. Yes, Sanders seems to be on the right side of a lot of issues, but that seems to blind you to taking a hard look at your heroes. So instead of having the balls to address the issue that was mentioned, you go all over the place with unrelated issues.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Well, actually, if you looked closely, those weren't my words. I posted an article. I should point out, (and probably should have pointed this out in the post) I take exception to the statement "the federal government is the problem" That is not my position. I posted the article because, aside from that, I think it serves to show how little the difference between the two camps.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Well, I guess we can agree on something. We should , indeed look at both. we then should assess the relative importance/ triviality of the differences, imo.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Well, the reality is that no label applies - people are either affected or disaffected, either American or anti-American.

Everyone in Congress is disaffected and far too many are anti-American.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Not sure what your use of the terms affected/disaffected means in this context, or how that means the labels don't apply.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

I see political science as antithetical to the cause of a united America.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

So what does Anti American mean?

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

Basically what it means is that we have grown far too pusillanimous to act in our own best interests; we have invited certain doom on virtually all fronts.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I think it is important to "know your enemy Being manipulated without realizing it, doesn't seem to be a good thing.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 2 years ago

I would tend to think of it more an electioneering tool. Which serves that very small, highly segregated, minority known to us as "politicians."

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Those you are referring to are neolibe(R)tarians.

It's a scalable description that works on a World wide stage.

The other? Not so much.

Think of their first BIG experiment as Chile.