Forum Post: "poor" Republican "values" and (R)ich Republican excess -- please explain this paradox!
Posted 12 years ago on June 24, 2012, 12:33 p.m. EST by Underdog
(2971)
from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is a fact that there are both (R)ich and "poor" that belong to the (R) party. It is obvious why the (R)ich would align with the (R) party, since they promote big-business agendas. But why are the "poor" (R)s unable to see that by continuing to vote for the (R)ich candidates that they are continuing to perpetuate the (R)ich agenda? The "poor" (R)s vote "traditional values" like anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-this and anti-that (basically anti-liberal) and completely ignore the much more sinister and harmful economic agenda of the (R)ich.
If you are an (R), and make less than $32k per year (50% of all working Americans fall in this class according to the IRS), how do you justify voting purely for the "values" side of the party platform and completely ignore the Big-Business (R)ich side of it? How??? Please explain yourself.
Do you enjoy working at Wal-Mart?
Jesus may bless you for voting Republican, but the (R)ich damn sure won't!!!!
Gun nuts and Jesus freaks. The economy is just not a priority for them. They don't need to vote based on their economic self-interest. Gun nuts can just shoot things for their next meal. And the Jesus freaks have the power of prayer. God will provide. And the rest are just plain stupid. Can't argue with stupid.
'Do you enjoy working at Wal-Mart?'. Actually, I think they do. God provided them that job. Can't argue with God.
And really- does anyone want to argue with a gun nut?
You have summarized the whole issue in a few words. Guns and God. So simple.
what is your in depth definition of a "gun nut"?
Members of the NRA. And then some.
by your reasoning members of seiu are union nuts.
Asking for anything "in depth" from somebody as ignorant and stupid as April is just a waste of time.
O.K. how about any definition of a "gun nut".
Hey I'am a "gun nut" so my definition would be a Patriotic American who exercises my 2nd Amendment with zeal.
the libs hate the second amendment. they only like the 1st amendment as long as you agree with them.
Racist,bigoted religiphobe?..........didn't know you had it in ya April.
Will you be burning anything or anybody in effigy next? Are the "Grand Dragon Lady"? So you've decided to "Occupy" your hatred,cool,at least you're not stinking up a local park right?
Hey, it's not my fault the right wing uses gun nuts and Jesus freaks to further their batshit crazy neo-liberal economic agenda.
What racist? What religiphobe? I happen to think religion is great. It doesn't belong in politics or government. That's all. You know - that First Amendment thingy, separation of church and state. There's nothing racist or religi-phoby about that.
'Grand Dragon Lady' lol. Good one. Yes. I'm the Grand Dragon Lady. Can I keep using that? It makes me feel all 'dragon-y'!! I like it.
And I don't hate anybody. I just think people that vote against their own economic self interest, when they've been getting screwed by right wing neo-lib policies for 30 years, all for the sake of guns and/or religion, is unbelievably stupid.
I'll front you a twinkle, if you burn a cross on my lawn on July 4.
I'm not really a Grand Dragon Lady. I was just playing with the dog.
Shucks, my neighbors would've loved the sight. They still fly the Stars and Bars.
I thought that was only in the South. You have some strange neighbors.
Nevada is a regular melting pot... not just from the heat, either.
Seems so. lol.
unbelievably stupid"
Yeah that pretty much sums up you. You mock religion,you insult gun owners and these people are of many races. You're just as ignorant and hateful as you claim "right wing" people are. Actually,you're way worse than you claim the other side is.
Yep,"unbelievably stupid" that's you.
Down boy down. I throw out a liitle red meat and you show yourself for the dog that you are.
Say what you will about me. Grand Dragon Lady or whatever. That's fine.
The base of the Republican party consists of gun nuts and Jesus freaks. If it weren't for guns and right wing politicians perversely using God in politics, Republicans would have a slim chance of even getting elected for crossing guard.
Go sit now shadzworth. Good doggy. I'll give you some more red meat to chomp on later.
LMAO,what a tool.
Glad I could make you laugh. This was fun! Could you make that 'tool-erina'. It's more feminine. Thanks.
The short answer is that Republicans know their true agenda can never get them elected. They need hot button emotional issues to get people to vote against their own pocketbook. It has been the three "G's" Guns, God and Gays. A longer term strategy is the "Two Santa Claus". Spend like a drunken sailor when in office, then scream about the debt when the Dems get in. It works. A third nasty thing is the Voodoo Economics that Friedman gave us and almost everyone bought into for many years. Yes, both parties. "We" waged an economic "war" on the whole world and almost won. Till the people got fed up. South America finally rejected this a few years ago. Now Brazil is one of the hottest economies in the world. If you want long answers I can give you links. From my blogs to Hartmann to some great books on the subjects.
Yes thanks. I would be interested in whatever links/books you could provide.
I have been bewildered with why there was this migration from the D party starting back in the 70s-80s based on this whole "values" propaganda that the (R)s promoted. It used to be that the Dems held the largest share of the Average Joe's vote, and the (R)s were always considered the party of the (R)ich. That is how it was when I was growing up and that is how it was explained to me as a teenager...but then it all changed.
We need to figure out how to get it back to the way it was. The 99% were much more representative of the Dems back then. These "poor" (R)s who vote values with no consideration for the (R)ich agenda are a real hard thing for me to understand (but perhaps there's just no understanding stupidity).
[Removed]
[Removed]
What do you say is their "true agenda"?
Make the rich richer. Unfortunately at the expense of the under class. It is just that simple. They are the party of the 1%.
go back to your bong.
Legalize it. How many Republican votes can you get?
why should it be legal?
The money.
whose money?
Tax money. Savings from enforcement and incarceration. Really big bucks. Minus the cigar boats and airplanes and such.
do you think it should extend to cocaine and heroin?
Yes. It all should be treated like alcohol and tobacco. I am libertarian on victimless crimes.
I think their main reasons are these:
Now whether the R party actually adheres to what it says is another story. But these are some key thoughts that go into the voters heads.
I'm fine with food stamps
I don't appreciate the government telling me to go look for a job from someone with money
would you expect a poor person to employ you?
Im fine with people who actually need them getting them. Im not taking them. And out of the hordes of people Ihave known to get them, only about half really needed them. The rest were just on cruise control.
there's no cruise control for food stands
one must continuously report back to the government yo prove their finances deserve it
You forgot the religious right. Anti-same sex relationships and marriage, anti-womens rights, anti-immigration.
Good point on religious right.
Most of the conservatives I know aren't anti immigration, they simply want them to fill out the paper work.
You actually captured a great deal of the thinking in your three bulleted points, but I noticed that you didn't get any replies. People would rather talk about how stupid republicans are for voting this way, and how if you are poor and vote republican you are just a sheep, or manipulated, blah blah blah.
I guess it is just too difficult for liberals to see that their way isn't the only way. There are other ways of running the country that other smart and educated people believe in.
The one thing they both have in common is their hardcore beliefs in their way or the highway, and their attacking style of the other...
almost like they have been programmed that way :)
hmmmmm...
Very true...and I'm as guilty as the next guy :)
[Removed]
I believe this has been posted before but according to one study "there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world..."Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order.." http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
Thank you for that link. I thought it was so good that I bookmarked it for future reference.
So, by this evidence, they simply vote R for conservative values because it offers a nicer, simpler, non-threatening worldview? Something they can understand better than the D liberal agenda? I don't get it. I thought that these poor (R)s voted this way because they feel they are taking the "moral" high-ground that, to them, equates to "all-things-anti-liberal". Anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc... But it is really all about resistance to change in society? For sure, they are in love with the status quo, but I always equated that to the (R)ich aspect of the party protecting it's wealthy interests.
Were the (R)ich diabolical enough to devise a strategy of getting lots of Christian Fundamentalists on-board knowing they are resistant to societal change and, thereby, guaranteeing a huge R voting block who would vote for values and ignore the wealth inequality aspect, even though it would be to the poor (R)s detriment?
Does this imply that if the Ds could simplify the D message that more poor (R)s would be able to understand it and migrate to the D side?
Somehow I think something is missing here.
There are two types of (R)'s as we are so delicately calling them: the manipulators and the manipulated. Or, those who want to be the authority and those looking for an authority figure. I think the study is onto something there. Why do some people willingly join cults? Just looking for someone to tell them what to do. I am interested in your question of what would make them migrate to the other side or to something different. Mass deprogramming? If you figure out how that can be done please let me know.
To say that there are two types of Republicans is a fallocy. Republicans are independent. They want less government intervention - less government handouts and they want to pay less in taxes.
As the old saying goes give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.
It's not the R's being manipulated its the vast majority of our society that is manipulated. The R's are doing just fine - including the so called "poor" R's
If you want to talk about manipulationApple is a fine example of manipulation - every 6 months or so they come out with a new better greater electronic deivce and the public falls for it and invests another $500 to $1000 to but it when in fact the one they have in their pocket is just 5 nanoseconds slower - but it's all about hype.
Yes, we all know that (R)s say they want less government, but that is just Rspeak for less taxes, because they equate taxes with bigger government. But this is lies and deception. They really want a government that provides them with Big Business advantages, and they lobby for that.
Look at one of the largest federal budgetary expenditures -- Defense (20% of budget). Who stands to benefit from all that spending? Those companies that make up the MIC with all of their defense contracts. And who lobbies like crazy for that? Big Business.
Who spent millions on lobbying to preserve the status quo as much as possible on National Healthcare (aka "Obamacare")? Because 17% of GDP is spent on healthcare in this country, the vast majority of which is Private healthcare insurance companies like CIGNA and others, those Big Business companies watered down the original proposal (which would have simply been an extension of our already-existing Medicare program) by seeing to it that everyone be REQUIRED BY LAW to PURCHASE healthcare instead of it being socialized like other countries (England, Canada, France, etc.). Who wins and who loses from such an arrangement? Private healthcare companies protect their interests (and survival) while continuing to regulate provisions of their coverage (they dictate what they will and will not cover because their bottom line would be impacted if they covered everything). As a matter of fact, they come out AHEAD in such an arrangement by adding 40 million uninsured Americans to their corporate coffers and thereby increasing their revenue stream. But the insured are no better off than before since the Insurance companies will continue to dictate coverage plans (what is and isn't covered). It has been clearly shown that Private insurance is MORE expensive than Socialized medicine because Private insurance administrative costs are about 10% of the total costs of coverage, and Socialized admin costs are just a fraction of that (about 1% I think...something like that).
The Rs are hypocrits in the extreme. They are all about preservation of status quo which equates to preservation of wealth. They don't really care about the size of government. Those that say they do have either been brainwashed or have a disinformation agenda. This is clearly indicated by their lobbying actions in government to preserve their wealth and the means to that wealth (Big Business). This includes PACs and the Citizens United effort that opens up Big Business to essentially purchase elections with unlimited contributions to their Good Ol' Boy candidates.
Small government my ass. They want deregulated, unhindered, Randism, (as in Ayn Rand) so they can run hog wild and rape and pillage the environment and their serviles. They want to be Feudal Lords with absolute control over everything, because they are POWER FREAKS.
Sociopaths.
Psychopaths.
Dammit! I thought we had you fooled. You don't want more freedom and liberty and smaller government? Government out of your face? Unless they have a gun in their hand. Individual responsibility? Except for big oil and big ag and the banks and Wall Street...
You need to turn you tv off once in a while. And start looking at how this system actually works.
As I have posted elsewhere many times, I do not watch TV except for C-SPAN and an occastional TCM old movie. That's just about it.
I know how the system works and doesn't work. I have been watching it for decades (I'm almost 57). I would have to say that in all the years I have watched it operate, it is now as close to being completely broken as I have ever seen it. This is because class warfare is being played out at all levels of government, and this reflects the deeply divided and polarized state of this nation.
Anyone who is a one sided as you are is a product of a lifetime of divisive media being pumped into one's head.
I dont blame you. You are not alone. People who see this for what it really is are few and far in between.
I am honored to be in the presence of such "greatness" as you.
There's nothing great about me. I just feel sorry for the next generation when I watch yours write such idiotic drivel as this post.
They are going to be cleaning up your mess for the rest of their lives.
Please PROVE with hard, accurate data that what I have posted is "Idiotic drivel", as you call it. Not denigrations, not attacks against the "liberal agenda". Provide FACTS that DISPROVE what I have written.
As far as a "lifetime of divisive media being pumped into my head", I do not need any of that to reach the conclusions I have reached. I observe and deduce based on words uttered on the floor of Congress. I WATCH C-SPAN and the floor of Congress in action on a very frequent basis. Do YOU??? If you did, you would clearly see what the Left stands for and what the Right stands for. It is plainly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person. The Left wants to work toward making things better for the American people...as many of the people as possible (the 99%). The Right are obstructionists and lovers of the status quo and constantly sing the tax cut song under the guise of smaller government. It doesn't take a genius to correctly interpret (R)speak. Just start watching C-SPAN and your government in action...the things they say when debating on the floor, and the way the voting goes. Just watch and learn.
We are, sillly pants...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-masses-are-asses/
Everyone knows that CSPAN is nothing but a place for politicians to get on live tv and grandstand in front of a camera.
You would probably be shocked as to how many people are in the chamber while they are ranting to empty seats.
Its just another show in teh circus that is DC.
Yes it is true that there are frequently very few people in the seats most of the time (since I watch a lot of C-SPAN I am well aware of that). But they are entering their statements into the Congressional record and broadcasting their speeches to the whole world to whoever cares to watch them. By going on the record, they are affirming what they stand for. And most of the time it is pretty clear what they stand for.
I repeat...just watch C-SPAN and learn, actually learn, how your government works.
I realize what they "stand" for. I also realize what they "vote" for.
I also realize that them staying int the special little club in DC is more important to them than really putting their neck on the line for hte people, really making some serious noise in the streets.
Anyone that has watched CSPAN realized what pathetic men, what total losers these wimps are.
86.4% re-election rate of incumbets in 2010 proves my point.
F*ck Em All.....
And we elect these "wimps"...so who's to blame for that?
[Removed]
"This country does in fact have a serious deficit problem. But the reality is that the deficit was caused by two wars — unpaid for. It was caused by huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. It was caused by a recession as result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And if those are the causes of the deficit, I will be damned if we’re going to balance the budget on backs of the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor. That’s wrong.”-- Senator Bernie Sanders. "Tax me, for fuck's sake."-- Stephen King
Too bad Sen Sanders and others in Congress do not understand how our currency works. Federal expenditures are not financed by taxes. A balanced budget is the worst thing that could happen to our economy and, we aren't going bankrupt. These are all political talking points that have no relation to how our economy runs.
http://pragcap.com/understand-the-modern-monetary-system/understanding-modern-monetary-system
http://hir.harvard.edu/debt-deficits-and-modern-monetary-theory
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/playing-monopolis-monopoly-an-inquiry-into-why-we-are-making-ourselves-so-miserable.html
[Removed]
You are wrong; Republicans want bigger government. If you deny it, then explain how you can control sexual preferences, marriage rights, conception rights, abortion rights, while at the same time funding ever growing police and armed forces with smaller government. No, Republicans really want much bigger government, so they can intervene in all our lives.
At the same time Republicans want to disenfranchise poverty-stricken voters, eliminate safety net programs, and cut federal-insurance benefits, for which the premiums have already been paid.
By now you should realize Republicans just want to benefit the ruling class, for whom they are the most outspoken, though not only, political party. The best way to obtain smaller government is to eliminate the class struggle, which means to merge the classes into one large but equal group
The Republicans don't want to teach people how to fish; they want all the fish.
Well if that's the case why has the deficite increased by 5 trillion in 3.5 years when during the Bush Admin ( which the obamanation likes to blame everything for) it went up 4.5 trillion.
And lets not forget the 7 trillion in secret that the fed reserve spent in bailouts.
Yah, the Republicans want bigger government don't they.
i am no fan of obama but you are way off base here - can you answer your own question? we can start with the job losses from the laast 2 quarters of 2008 and the first two from 2009 - i can refresh your memory. -334, -651, -752 and -477. might that have something to do with deficit - mandated gov't spending. as to the gop looking for smaller government - well that is what they say but if you look at what they do you will find a different story. look at the reagan years and then bush #2 - they are statists - radical statists. increasing the size of the state (as opposed to the govenment - do you know the difference?) and driving up the deficit in order to "starve the beast." here you can read more if you like - i'm sure you won't since you do not want to upset your religious belief in the gop and free markets - On July 14, 1978, a few weeks after the Prop. 13 vote, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which would have cut all federal income tax rates by about one-third. A key witness was Greenspan, who had recently served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and was undoubtedly the most respected business economist in the United States. He was the first Republican to articulate what came to be called "starve the beast" theory.
Said Greenspan to the committee, "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."
Citing Greenspan's testimony, conservative columnist George Will endorsed Kemp-Roth and STB in a column on July 27, 1978. "The focus of the fight to restrain government has shifted from limiting government spending to limiting government receipts," he reported.
The reason there has been a lot of spending during the Obama admin is because of the first 2 trillion "Quantitative Easing" (FedSpeak for print up a ton of money and inject it into the economy) followed by another $700 billion QE, not to mention all the bank bailouts and auto company bailouts caused by the Houseing Bubble meltdown, ultimately traceable to Wall Street debt instruments like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), etc. --- and this ALL came about under (R)W's failure to keep an eye on things and let the Wall Street banksters do pretty much whatever they wanted.
Remember, Obama had to try to jumpstart a meltdown economy handed to him by that imbecile GWB.
Well, the housing bubble was not caused by Bush it was caused by Freddie Mac And fannie Mae.
Read on:
They were required to meet affordable housing goals, set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in accordance with The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992.
The purchase of PLS backed by subprime mortgages counted toward meeting these goals because the underlying mortgages tended to be made to less-than-median-income borrowers or were collateralized by properties in “underserved areas” (HUD, 2010).
By acquiring 40% of all PLS collateralized by subprime mortgages, Fannie and Freddie stoked demand for risky mortgages that contributed directly
Excuse me, but HUD is a Department under the President, and the Secretary of HUD is appointed by the President (the Sec. is part of his Cabinet). So there is no excuse for W not knowing for 8 years what was going on, especially if housing goals are set annually as you say. His Secretary of HUD would/should have been required to submit reports on a regular basis as to the soundness of Freddie and Fannie. Unless his Secretary of HUD did not do his/her job of keeping him informed of what was going on with the sub-primes, W was either indifferent or incompetent or both. In any event, he was the Prez and he was ultimately responsible, because the first rule of management is that you can delegate authority but not responsibility.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership
HUD No. 04-006
January 19, 2004
"LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage.
Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.
"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal."
Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone."
read more here:
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-006.cfm
Puhleeze..this housing/subprime fiasco started under Slick Willie
Don't give me that crap - read the following links and then tell me that Bush didn't try to stop the crap that was happing with Barney Frank and HUD
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/franks-stopped-bush-in-03-to-regulate-fannie-mae-17-times/blog-29077/
http://elenaives.com/attempts-president-bush-reform-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/
more for you - The Koch brothers’ money can be ascribed to many sources. Let‘s start with $300 million—as Charles and David Koch did when their father, who founded Koch Industries, died in 1967. Since then, the Koch brothers have been recipients of corporate welfare; grazing cattle and harvesting timber on public lands, using the government-created power of eminent domain to obtain routes for their thousands of miles of gas and oil pipelines, and even taking advantage of direct government subsidies to produce ethanol.http://faireconomy.org/selfmademyth/infographics/koch
another nonsense gop theory - follow the money - who was screaming for more and more subprime securitized instruments so they could suck down big money on aaa rated bonds - go ahead look! here some more about starve the beast (and you do know why they want to starve it don't you - no i doubt it) - Unfortunately there is no evidence that the big 1981 tax cut enacted by Reagan did anything whatsoever to restrain spending. Federal outlays rose from 21.7% of GDP in 1980 to 23.5% in 1983, before falling back to 21.3% of GDP by the time he left office.
Rather than view this as refutation of starve the beast theory, however, Republicans concluded that Reagan's true mistake was acquiescing to tax increases almost every year from 1982 to 1988. By the end of his presidency, Reagan signed into law tax increases that took back half the 1981 tax cut. His hand-picked successor, George H.W. Bush, compounded the error, Republicans believe, by supporting a tax increase in 1990.
When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, one of his first acts in office was to push through Congress--with no Republican support--a big tax increase. Starve the beast theory predicted a big increase in spending as a consequence. But in fact, federal outlays fell from 22.1% of GDP in 1992 to 18.2% of GDP by the time Clinton left office.
Although all of evidence of the previous 20 years clearly refuted starve the beast theory, George W. Bush was an enthusiastic supporter, using it to justify liquidation of the budget surpluses he inherited from Clinton on massive tax cuts year after year. Bush called them "a fiscal straightjacket for Congress" that would prevent an increase in spending. Of course nothing of the kind occurred. Spending rose throughout his administration to 20.7% of GDP in 2008.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/poor-republican-values-and-rich-republican-excess-/#comment-780144
It's deficit, which right now is about $1.3 trillion. http://usdebtclock.org/
Why did Bush lead the U.S. from a budget surplus of $250 billion in 2000 ( http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS ) to a $600 billion deficit in 2008 ( http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/79359-these-are-the-true-deficits-bush-800b-obama-14t).
You may be able to do the math. The current deficit is about $1.3 trillion, which means that Obama has increased the deficit by about $700 billion, which so far amounts to about $150 less than Bush had increased the deficit.
Not to defend Obama, since he basically followed the same, failed neo-liberal policies that W had followed, but he also inherited worldwide wars and a tanked economy. Now, you would probably like to blame someone, anyone but maybe you should look someplace else.
Incidentally, since you favor smaller government, I must assume you're pro gay rights, pro marriage choice, pro abortion choice, and want to see a reduction in the police, intelligence, and defense budgets.
The Federal Reserve (once board members have been nominated and approved) operates outside the juridstiction of either the President or the Congress. So, to blame a president or Congress for the decisions of the fed is like blaming the sun for a cloudy day.
I agree with you the vast majority of society is manipulated but R's have it down to a well funded science. Why do they say they want to balance the budget but expect to pay less in taxes? I am no economist but that has never made sense to me. Just seems like a carrot on a stick.
Yes, in a competitive office Republican Plans SHOULD BE LAUGHED AT, They should be called IDIOTS, Their credentials should be QUESTIONED, There education and accounting education RIDDICULED, GOP Budgets should be REJECTED Outright since the bottom line never adds up, The History of Trickle Down Budgets and GOP historical Budgets that reduced Tax Revenue should be Well Known, Established, Framed, and Printed on the Wall Outside of Congress, Case Studies of GOP Budgets should be entered into COngressional Record with Reference Numbers Printed in the Hall in the Framed Printed Budget on Display.
The Republicans are well known for creating Budgets, with expensive Programs (usually in DOD), while cutting taxes at the same time. The effect has always been (to my knowledge) a bigger budget shortfall, bigger total budget deficit, and bigger budget outlays.
In effect the GOP never wants to pay for their Budget.
How about we start with downsizing the government. That would be a start -
One thing that I thought was funny was everyone was complaining about why we were in Iraq and the vast majority said it was because of oil.
Well if that was the case why did it cost this country billions of dollars. Obama is the one who is in charge and for the last 3.5 years he has not accomplished one thing that improved the economy.
You can be sure when gasoline prices get below $3.00 a gallon, he will take credit for it but the fact is that it's because less people are spending money on gasoline because it costs them over $65.00 a week to fill up.
"One thing that I thought was funny was everyone was complaining about why we were in Iraq and the vast majority said it was because of oil. Well if that was the case why did it cost this country billions of dollars."
Bet your ass it was mostly about oil. Who made the money? Not our government, you are right. But Halliburton, Exxon, BP (the Brits helped and won the largest drilling contract in Iraq), the oil industry made out hand over fist.
Another thing. We are the worlds reserve currency. Oil is traded in US dollars. When oil stops trading in dollars our currency takes a big hit. Saddam sat on the 2nd or 3rd (depending on how you count) largest oil reserves in the world. Not having that oil traded in dollars would have been a major hit to the value of the US dollar.
In October of 2000, Saddam stopped selling his oil in US dollars. He made a huge windfall by doing that. We invaded not long after that. His true WMD was economics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a failed coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
Now Iran that sits on huge oil supplies has removed the dollar as the currency for trade. Is it a surprise that we are rattling sabers against them as well?
The oil in Iraq was used to provide fuel for the armed forces vehicles - no oil was ever exported to any other country.
Iraq in 2011 started exporting oil - here's the link:
http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/5/invest834.htm
BTW, I never said anyting about Halliburten, Exxon or BP - what I did say was that the US never received any oil from Iraq as people say they did during the war there - another false accusation.
Oil is sold in the global marketplace.... thats what Exxon, BP, and others do with the oil they drill. Refiners buy from that marketplace and make the products which are sold locally, like gasoline to the US.
The whole concept of the US receiving oil directly from the Iraq war doesn't fit into how the oil industry operates in the real world. I brought up how Halliburton, BP, and Exxon profited from the war, because that is the only way they could... and they profited heavily, which is one important way how/why the war was chiefly about oil. The other prominent reason was to preserve our financial lock on using US currency for oil trade.
We are not talking about the global marketplace. We are talking about the oil in Iraq and if it was sold to the United States or if the United States intent was to get Iraquie oil. Was it or wasn't it?
When you talk about oil you have to talk about the global marketplace. Prior to Desert Storm, Iraq was a member of OPEC and its oil was sold on the global marketplace. Some of that oil was purchased by US refineries. So where in time do you want to start?
The intent of the United States was to keep the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world under our economic control by having Iraq's oil traded in US dollars and not the Euro, which Saddam switched to in 2000.
Thank God we used to have a POTUS with American interests at heart! Hopefully, we will again shortly
Going to war with Iraq had our interests at heart? Yeah, explain that one.
Less than $4/gal gas. Spare me your bleeding heart rebuttal. Admit the price of gas is a BIG TIME CONCERN for most working folks, right/wrong or how Uncle Sam keeps it so low. You DO know how much gas costs in most of the rest of the western world, right? But, since they have socialized medicine guess it all evens out, right?
4,486 American dead, 33,184 more of our sons and daughters maimed for life .... so that you can exclaim "Less than $4/gal gas"?
Admit the price of gas is a BIG TIME CONCERN for most working folks,
Of more value than their sons and daughters lives? No.... and I mean that as a working parent of two kids in their 20's. Absolutely not!
Again let me emphasize - everyone was talking about the reason the US invaded Iraq was because of oil.
Did Iraq ship oil to the United States? A yes or no answer will do.
You and I are having a conversation, or so I thought. Are you so ideologically challenged that you are going to try and force a point in our conversation that isn't even up for discussion? Have I mentioned that outside of OPEC sales, anything about Iraq shipping oil to the US? Did I or did I not give what my thoughts are on the reasons for the war with Iraq?
Thank God we used to have a POTUS with American interests at heart! Hopefully, we will again shortly
You are a fool....He was just another puppet in a long line of circus acts.
How is being "poor", regardless of party, "doing just fine" as you called it?
It all depends on how a person defines being "poor". Todays society thinks being poor is not having money to spend on whatever they want, whenever they want.
But yet the vast majority who claim to be poor, have cell phones, IPODS, cars, air conditioning, electricity and a roof over their head and internet service and are getting subasdized by the government.
Being poor is a relevant term with regard to how the individual interpretes it.
Excuse me, but being poor is a term of quantification as defined by government such as the IRS, BLS, etc.
Ever hear of the poverty line?
Good example with Apple.
We must fight it. Do not submit. Stay strong. Right is wrong. Progressive policies are the only solution.
What are some progressive policies you would like to see?
Expand Pell grants, cut middle class taxes, Raise wealthy taxes (90% rate it worked during the depression), Punish banks by forcing them to forgive working class credit card debt, and limit cr card interest to 10%. Public option health insurance, Eliminate the corp deduction of salaries over 100k, Repeal corp citizenship, money out of politics (publicly funded campaigns), Encourage worker owned businesses, penalize offshoring or jobs/assets/hq, Reward onshoring. Cut the military. Many more policies. Digest that a bit and please try to address them with the normal insults, and personal attacks.
the sort that still believe in hippies and unicorns
Religious Cult Brain Washing!!
We didn't just get weapon technology from the Nazis with Operation Paperclip. The Big Lie, etc. propaganda techniques have been applied in strategy called Shock Doctrine, first used in Chile in the 70s, and now on us. Class War is being wage on us in the form of Shock Doctrine!!!
RepubliCons are a cult and the PTB in the 1% are their Manson.
In my observation, the division is not (R) vs (D) or even rich vs poor. It is urban vs rural. The value systems between these two groups can be quite different. Many policies from the (D) side of the fence can make life difficult (or at the very least, not beneficial) for those in rural settings. The (R)'s have in their platform many of the pieces that support a rural lifestyle. State's rights are vital so that rural representation is valued. Talk to those of us in this rural landscape and you might be surprised out how thoughtful, resourceful and supportive we can be to various ideas from both the (R)'s and the (D)'s. By the way, a life time Independent and will remain that way.
That is a very interesting observation, and Independents such as you do make up a significant part of the voting block these days. How do the (D) policies make life difficult/not beneficial for rural Americans? I have not heard anyone put this argument across before.
A little busy at the moment, but I can get deeper into it later if you like. Just to touch topics quickly though, EPA regulations can be unrealistic at times (Not all), approaches to farm & ranch subsidies, gun control regulations, capital gains, death and property tax laws, programs that are available in urban areas are not even dreamed of having in rural areas. There are others and I am happy to discuss when time allows. You may be surprised at just how many (D) agendas are common place out here. We really are a blend of the R's & D's when it comes to what works. We just do not think of them as owned by either side. When listening to my community, we ultimately grow tired of the R/D agendas and the constant war for power between them both.
Noted, and very interesting. The usual assumption (perhaps incorrect) is that the (D) agenda is nowhere near as focused on excessive wealth attainment (and preservation of wealth) as the R agenda. Historically, (D)s are liberal in the true sense of the word (they are for improvements) and have been responsible for social change such as freeing the slaves, Women's Sufferage, enacting of Child Labor laws, the Union movement, Social Security and Medicare, Civil Rights movement, etc. and the (R) agenda (Conservative agenda) has been for --- what? --- Interstate Highway System under Eisenhower? Anything else come to mind? Historically, they appear to oppose social programs/improvements and are obsessively focused on tax cuts for the wealthy class. They have oppossed all efforts for tax reform such as progressive tax, Federal sales tax, etc...
Since these two parties are so completely ideologically different, I find it interesting that people do adopt the Independent status when voting. Is there a particular strategy to that? Why do you think there are so many Independent voters? Disgust with both (R)s and (D)s and their party platforms?
One more, then I am leaving the building. I would like to further this talk later, so please go ahead and respond.
The day I was to choose my affiliation, it did not make sense to me that I would vote party line all the way through. I was raised to be self reliant...an individual. I prefer to think about each topic and move forward from there. That has not changed in 25+years.
By the way, (R) were behind freeing the slaves and (D) were behind segregation. Were they for noble reasons in either case? A long story.
When I was born, my family was very poor. My bedroom with my sister (who died at 2 from spina bifida) was the inset of the hallway in a little 20ft. trailer. My dad had a union jobs at a nuclear and coal burning power plants. It eventually killed him and my mom got 5 years of pension before they (union) terminated it. Not much for 35 years of service. In the time before and after my dad's death, we saved and worked hard as a family to eventually grow a small family ranch. I worked as an electrician along with scholarships to get my degrees. We have amassed some wealth, described as land poor:-), but we are doing ok. Do I owe the D's or R's anything for that success?
I support both D and R ideas. You asked how anyone could support R's when you are poor? Because there are parts of their platform that help people out here in BFE. Just like there are ideas from D's that do the same. I address each issue individually and support accordingly. I really got to run, but look forward to further discussion. Later
Well, you have certainly had a hard life, and do embody the American Spirit of independence, so in your particular case I think I can understand your Independent voter status.
Yes, I was in error when I said the (D)s freed the slaves as it was Lincoln, the first (R) president. But back then, the ACT of freeing the slaves was a liberal action (status quo/conservative would have been not to free them). I am so used to associating (D)s with Liberal and (R)s with Conservative that I did slip up there. Regardless of party, the two categories of Liberal and Conservative comes down to the first being for social changes that improve society for all, and the second being for holding back (obstructing) the first. The first want to spend money on social programs for all and the second want to keep money in their pocket for themselves. This is the classic battle that has always been fought.
Thomas Jefferson said this:
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, ...Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all. -Thomas Jefferson
And it was D's and R's of the south that stood in the way of the civil rights fights of the 60's. I ask myself and others, what was the motive for such decisions in Lincoln's, Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon's times? None of them are so innocent or humble in their motives. I am not saying that our leaders are bad people. Just understand the context and motives of their actions.
We have problems to address. Spending our time categorizing who was or is good is not really the point. Sure, there are R's that support the wealthiest interest, but there are D's that do the same. ALSO, there are R's that are driven by social issues just like the many of the D's. Knowing this, we should hold each accountable without exception, regardless of the little letter next to their name.
We spend so much time on labels and categories that we sometimes do not see what truly is a good direction to proceed. Stating a position from one side does not necessarily dictate that the "other" side is right or wrong. These tactics are used by R's and D's. Sometimes, the best choice is a third or fourth option. Stepping away from party line can sometimes be the correct choice. Unfortunate that that can also mean political death by one's own party.
OWS like the Tea Party started out as grass roots movements. Driven by people who are tired of those in political control. The Tea Party was hijacked by the R's just like I see OWS being hijacked by the D's. I hope more and more people will feel like I do in that both parties are not the complete answer. We can do better than that.
You have a beautiful vision that I can appreciate. Very unfortunately, we don't live in that world. This country has become highly divisive and highly politically polarized. Class warfare is being played out at the State and Federal government level, and that is why we have gridlock government. That is also why you see so much R and D conflict both here and in the media. It is all out in the open now. There is no attempt to even hide the facts anymore.
A beautiful vision, but hopelessly idealistic at this point. Things would have to change dramatically in the direction of cooperation, and that is just not conceivable in this divided environment. Someday maybe, but things will have to change in a big, big way.
I agree that it is idealistic. To thy own self be true. I was raised that you take care of yourself and those around you. You do that and that is all that you can do. Every now and then, a policy is created that either helps or hinders our lives out here. We do not seek nor expect help in most cases. If we do not have then we do without until we can change it. Truth is, we grow our own food, create our own jobs, we barter, we relate to nature, take care of our neighbors and watch the worlds insanity with just a little puzzlement.
We are informed, have our opinions, are skeptics and by no means ignorant and backwards as the rest of the world would imply. There is always the occasional nut, but those are everywhere.
You mention a class warfare. I see that warfare threaten our very existence. The urban populations have a very different approach to our problems and it sometimes does not consider those in less populated areas. We really need to learn how to respect one another, empathize on each others condition and discuss each other ideas.
I heard something today on NPR as I was driving. The show was about the different generations (Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, etc). While differences were discussed, one thing that caught my attention was a discussion about the concept of independance versus cooperation. It was indicated on the show that the Millennials were much more likely to view cooperation as essential for success as a whole rather than the older gen's independant worldview. Older gens seem to place a very high priority on independance -- they feel like they have to do it all themselves and that you can't count on help from anyone, i.e. "we are all in this alone". The Millennials don't view things like this, i.e. "we are all in this together". Whether this is youthful naivete about the world, or a whole different paradigm for saner politics (cooperation -- what a concept!!!) remains to be seen. But it is a hopeful sign regarding the younger generation coming up at least. I was encouraged.
I can see the point made, but I deviate in what independence actually represents. I feel that the best thing that I can do for my country and fellow citizens is to be as independent as possible. In no way can anyone within a society be totally independent. However, if I look to my government or other citizen for help in all aspects of my life, I end up burdening them while weakening my own resolve. I have other extended family members that will quickly run to welfare, unemployment, other family members, etc. rather than finding away to take care of themselves. If you cannot do it, so be it, accept the help. At least have pride and put out some effort. Swing either way too far and it is probably not good.
When you accept help, you give up some of your own freedoms. Example: "If we pay for your health care, then we want a say in what you put into your body." Many are not so quick to give up that freedom and would rather do without or at least limit what government provides, so that they can maintain those personal freedoms.
"If we pay for your health care, then we want a say in what you put in your body."
But the Private healthcare insurance companies like CIGNA are doing that now, so what's the difference? They dictate what will and will not be covered, what drugs will and will not be paid for. Some even offer "incentives" for "lifestyle changes".
Healthcare should never be for-profit. Other industrialized countries realized that a long time ago and have been on taxpayer supported healthcare (aka socialized medicine) for decades. If you talk to citizens in those countries most of them are very happy with the system and consider our capitalistic healthcare barbaric to place dollars ahead of lives. They are right.
I must disagree when you say we are giving up freedoms when we assist those who are too poor to afford capitalistic healthcare. What we are doing is moving to a more egalitarian society. We are talking about 40 million uninsured Americans. People can also be completely wiped out by serious accident or illness without healthcare coverage. We would not want to be in that position if it were us. Are we barbarians? Do we just say "well, too bad, you were unlucky...you'll have to fend for yourself"?
This independant spirit you keep referring to is commendable in some respects, but destructive in others. Back in the days of the pioneers there may simply have been no other choice. Populations were small and people were spread out over vast areas. But we don't live in that world now. Things are very complex now, and we must all band together and help each other wherever possible, because our problems are immense. Continuing the independant paradigm only makes sense if it works. For millions of people all around the world, that model is simply unworkable. The egalitarian model is the only way to insure the barest minimum standard of living for all world citizens. The "I've got mine, go get yours" mentality, taken to it's logical conclusion, would result in the continued misery and possible destruction of millions.
In these short comments, I try not to describe all aspects of my opinions in one writing. I will try to do better. I did say in the paragraph above, "In no way can anyone within a society be totally independent." I understand that when I read your comments, you cannot possibly know all about my walk in life. It is alright, that is what conversation is for.
In my community, most of us can be very independent people. However, when someone is in need, we drop everything to help. Current situation is the recent fires that are within 10 miles of my home and destroying others land and homes. I am on the list to take in people's animals and offer storage of whatever I can.
You are absolutely correct in that we need to take care of each other. I support "safety" nets for people, whether it is welfare, healthcare, unemployment, etc. Two key things, how we go about paying for it and we should always encourage others to stand on their own two feet as soon as possible. Too often, I see others that try and get these important services when they could do without for awhile or plan better. It is a tough balance.
You know one of my sob stories, I will add another. I am self employed. In '04, I had two employees and a small little shop that took care of all three of us. I needed to get surgery on my knee. My insurance was in place and I was told that I could proceed with the surgery. (Policy included down time expense of me not being able to work). I had the surgery and thought all was good. They paid the MRI, the actual surgery and was paying for rehab. All is good. Then my therapist asked why the bills were no longer being paid? I checked. Long story short, they claimed that I was three days late on a premium payment. Not the truth. Check was sent easily 10 days ahead of time. They did not pay the anesthesiologist, the therapist for three months and they would not cover my expenses. I was still making premium payments the entire time. I was added to a class action lawsuit of which I got back three months of premium payment. My other bills were not paid. I nearly went bankrupt, got in trouble with back taxes and credit cards and almost lost my home because of them. I sold my home, sold everything and made arrangements with all debts. Took me five years, living in another little pull trailer while I paid all of my bills. Long story short, they got away with it.
Now I apply this scenario to Obamacare. It would not be able to save me as structured (I did the research), plus it forces me to get right back into bed with one of the most corrupt industries in the nation. Insurance companies. I still have insurance for catastrophic cases and hope that they will pay if the time comes. Injured and miss a payment? I am screwed without my savings.
Also, I do not use credit cards. Pay cash for most everything. I am completely out of debt except for two mortgages. Thank goodness I refied to get them lower than car payments. It took 5 years, but I am sitting pretty good. I do work by myself now and keep my overhead extremely low.
Now I am in a position to help others. I mentor about 15 kids. Take care of my mom and am a member of a local grange that spends it's time taking care of those in need in our community.
I am not religious. I am open to all with or without a faith. Marry who you want (same sex or otherwise) I promote alternative energy and building. Grow a pretty large garden that feeds three of us each year and then some for others.
I am not a saint. I just do not understand why we spend so much time trying to destroy each other?
What is it like where you live? How does your community work? What are the people like. Your tag says Florida. I am in Colorado near two of the current fires. I just feel that if we all tried our best to be self supporting and help others personally, most of this other BS would not be necessary. I can appreciate that you think I am living a pipe dream. The difference is that I am living it. It is real and I love my life even with its problems.
Whew! You have been through some tough times, and I can understand why you feel the way you do about insurance companies.
The thing that is not too clearly known about the ACA (derisively called Obamacare by the Repubs) is that it is a compromise. Originally intended as an extension of Medicare, it is now a mix of private and social options. People who can't afford or don't qualify for a private plan can choose the social option, and there are a LOT of people in that category who likely cannot afford private insurance (most people get it from working for large companies that have healthcare benefits). But if you get layed off or run up a lot of medical bills due to severe illness or injury, it's a great safety net.
I live in a small town of about 25,000 people (about 10,000 when I first moved here in 2000, so it really boomed). People are friendly here. No violent crime at all (mostly breakins and small time drug busts). Florida is different in that the culture is like living up north, but it is in the south geographically. So many retired people from up north here because of climate and also because we are 1 of only 4 states in the union that don't have state income tax, so it is faily cheap to live here. But the jobs suck. Mostly low-pay service jobs. We are right-to-work state, so the unions have no power here and are ridiculous.
CO is similar. I live about 25 miles from our largest community in the area of about 16,000 people. We are a very athletic community, friendly with a blend of R's & L's and I's. Most of us spend time out of doors in various activities. I heard we are one of the most fit counties in the state and it is in the top 3 of the fittest in the country.
I applied my previous experience with the "new" plan. I am self employed. I do not get paid if I am not working. All is good until my savings run out and I cannot pay the premium or the insurance company finds another loophole. Insurance still drops me and I have to pay out of pocket. Where is this better?
Also, if you take the ACA rules (poverty x 1.5) to find the line where people are required to pay for insurance out of their own pocket. A single person that makes $16,755 or higher will have to prove the purchase of insurance. When I was single last year, my insurance was right at $450 per month. If I made $16,755 minus my insurance, I would have about $11,000 to pay for other life sustaining needs like rent, food etc. Not very realistic. Now I know that the ACA plan can offer credit etc. but I ask you, why are the insurance companies even involved? This is no more than a subsidy for the insurance industry. An industry who's profits are based on how many ways they can say NO to you. I am for a better health care system, but I try and back up to basics and move forward from there.
Doctors need to make a living and people need access to reasonably priced healthcare. The ONLY reason that doctors/insurance can price things so high is because what they offer can affect life and death. If this was shoes, they would not be able to do it. I just do not think this mandate to the insurance industry was the answer. I would have rather seen a national tax be applied to this than the way it has gone. The way it is set up now, the lower middle and middle class are going to suffer the most. There has to be a better way? I have ideas and we can break them down over time, but I need to get back to work now. Lunchtime is over. Good luck to your day.
The Republican party has historically created more bureaucracy and spend more money than do democrats so small gov is off the table but maybe not so obvious just yet. The Republican party not only seek to ignore the poor but to exploit their desperation for personal gain so Christianity and family values are off the table. In fact, when you get right down to it, it boils down to racism and hate. The good-ol-boy party. There are some that follow simply because their friends or family do and they are too stupid to think for themselves and that isn't a crime or morally corrupt, but it is sad.
"The Republican party has historically created more bureaucracy and spend more money than do democrats ."
Please post links to substantial authoritative sources that support your partisan claim. Thanks.
Sure thing Spanky.
http://richardkentgates.com/images/fredgraph.png
Not every uncomfortable truth can be downplayed by old games. Test me only to find yourself looking like an idiot, but then thats why you need a fake name or to copy someone else's name isn't it, jack ass.
I am not "Spanky", and your chart in no way supports your assertion that...
"The Republican party has historically created more bureaucracy and spend more money than do democrats ."
Either post support or admit you lied, but please don't waste peoples' time further either way.
For anyone else reading this thread, review the graph and compare to what party was in control of the White House and Congress during the increases in spending. Obviously the troll wants to dissuade anyone from reviewing the graph by challenging it not with fact but outright lying, typical republican.
The graph was produced by http://www.stlouisfed.org
(1) Your chart is from your own website, not a substantial authoritative source.
(2) Your chart only has data from 1970 forward, not "historically".
(3) What your chart shows, even if it is totally accurate, in no way proves which party "created more bureacracy" or "spent more money".
I am no Republican. And you have made it clear that YOU are the liar.
True, so create a new constitution against Wal-Mart executives, as follows:
We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:
The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.
This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).
Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?
For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!
Yes - Good - question wrong thinking or non-thinking. Perhaps it may land on an open mind and that open mind may reach another mind.
Question your convictions people and find out if they truly support the development of a better world.
Just because this is what you were taught as a child does not make it truth or good - it just means that this is what you were taught.
Analise reality - what makes sense as being beneficial to all.
Why would anyone be against this? And not attach a comment as to why they disagree.
[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (9515) from Coon Rapids, MN 21 minutes ago
Yes - Good - question wrong thinking or non-thinking. Perhaps it may land on an open mind and that open mind may reach another mind.
Question your convictions people and find out if they truly support the development of a better world.
Just because this is what you were taught as a child does not make it truth or good - it just means that this is what you were taught.
Analise reality - what makes sense as being beneficial to all. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[Removed]
It is all about corrupt and inept government.
Gov is a monopoly and monopolies lack accountability, produce lousy products, and poor service. It is not that there is something wrong with the people in Gov, it is just human nature. In fact Rs can be as bad as Ds.
The key is to starve them. Take away their funding (both taxes and their ability to borrow. A balanced budget amendment like most states have would be nice)
Republican politicians run on cutting taxes. Elect them and then hold their feet to the fire.
Progressives should embrace the Rs ( as long as they reduce the size of Gov, particularly the Fed Gov ). Less Gov should mean fewer wars, fewer laws that limit our freedom, less corporate - Gov corruption/collusion, more local power, no Gitmo, no NSA, more liberty.