Jump to content
Dr. Joe B.

Liberalism Versus Conservatism

Recommended Posts

Surely you are smart enough to know that the objective was not to pump more oil from Iraq. It was obviously to control and stop oil from Iraq to drive up prices in the world market. Clearly, the Saudi and Texas oil interests were the recipients of the benefits of stopping Iraq oil production. Believe it. These guys know how to control prices. Remember the 4.20 per gal rigged prices during the Bushswine's administration?

 

Here is another observation that I made in 2001. The Bushoilpigs sent a contingent of Marines in to take charge of the world shipping administration that operates in Liberia. Do you know how important Liberia is to oil delivery from the mid east? Check it out on the internet.

 

The objective of the US Marines was to stop the insurrection in Liberia and thereby gain control of international oil tanker shipments. Why else would the Bush administration care about a pitifully poor Liberia's revolutions? No one has cared much about Liberia for years until Bush. Seeing the pieces should help everyone understand that the attack on Iraq was about oil. It was supported heartily by guys like Lieberman, Feith, Wolfowicz, Libby, and more of the Jewish Israeli citizens within the USA mainly because they believed that it was a good idea to protect Israel by occupying Iraq and eliminating Hussein as a threat to Israel.

 

Of course, Israel was not ever really threatened substantially by a weakling nation like Iraq with virtually no military capability compared to the USA,France,Germany or any of the other nations surrounding it. It was a case of Israeli patriotism that sided so many of the USA Jews with Bush. Normally, they would have been natural enemies with the Texas bunch of thieves. You know? The saying goes, an enemy of my enemies is my friend. So, at least temporarily, many Jews supported the Bushbunch who have long been antisemites for the most part. So far only Libby has been convicted for his complicity in the plot to control oil. More will be investigated now that we have a real president of the USA representing all of our interests and not just a small group of supporters from the oil/energy/defense industries.

 

Right. You watch too many movies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear ye, hear ye...all ye bloggers with a belly full of venom. I have decided to publish one of my vitriolic poems for your amusement. This particular poem was written to be the lyrics for a blues number whose music I have not yet finalized. I have written a number of blues songs. This one has current political relevancy. So, I offer it as a gift to the folks on this forum who enjoy reading messages whether pro or con on their own views. Please never take any of my comments seriously. I love you all. I just want to connect your minds to reality.

 

My best friend is an Alabaman incorrigible Red state advocate.

 

THE BUSH LEGACY BLUES

 

Pox on the Chief

Cuz the chief was a thief

The chief caused great grief

Now many are on relief

Pox on the chief

What a miserable thief

He stoled our surplus budget

Left us the hole in the donut

What will it take

To fix that snake?

After stealing our dough

Should he be free to go?

 

Should he be punished for treason

Zounds, we have plenty good reason

Into graves he led brave soldiers

Acting like a hero

Standing on their shoulders

What manner of villain ..this poltroon be?

Should he be allowed to go free?

Or as in the wild west

Should he swing from a tree?

 

The Bushbunch have left in a shade

Now we must fix the mess they made

Obama will fix the mess his way

Unless they screw the plans he lay

 

Shall we prosecute them for treason?

Followed by imprisonment for malfeasance

The Bush gaggle of ghouls

Played the public for fools

We've been lied to by Cheney.

Is his punishment only to be infamy?

Casting him in a prison for criminally insane

Seems a more fitting end to his game

 

Maybe imprisonment will clear the slate

Avoiding being a target for an aggressive inmate

Seems like a fitting and well-deserved fate

 

Oh, Pox on the chief

What a miserable thief

May a sickly crow splatter his face

Or an angry CIA waterboard him with mace

 

Oh, Pox on the chief

What a miserable thief

What a pisspoor chief!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be the real impact of printing money to be distributed within the USA? That is the real question that is relative to the stimulus plan. Obama was quite right in stating that a stimulus plan is a spending plan. And he is quite right in understanding that it is exactly what is needed, if done in a way that the stimulus stimulates the middle classes and not just the top 1 percent of money earners.

 

Since the Grand Old Pig party take over during the Reagan regime most government stimulating has been done in a way to give benefits to the richest percent of money earners in the USA. Obama wishes to reverse that stupidity. The trickle-down theory has never worked in any society throughout history. Though it does make a small percent of the richest population very happy. Still, many mega-billionaires like W. Buffett know that his wealth has only been generated because the working classes have been able to afford to buy. Some of the greedy pigs on Wall Street might be now getting the message. However, because they were enfranchised with the Grand Old Pig party who has controlled our federal government since Reagan, the Wall Street crowd has gotten away with major thievery and fraud through much inside trading due to lack of regulation and enforcement. Times are definitely going to change for the better for the working classes who actually produce goods and services that feed the parasites on Wall Street. Obama knows what has to be done. The big question is will pigs at the trough stop him?

 

Do you see how artificial our money supply is? It is just funny cloth paper-like stuff. In its totality it simply represents the worth of our nation. Increasing the money supply and then redistributing to those who will spend and invest it is simply a big money game. It is shifting the value of our nation's total worth to those who actually broke their backs making it happen. Sounds like a terrific idea that a guy like Ben Franklin would have enjoyed watching. In fact, the USA was built by its strong middle classes while Europe was perishing in starvation and poverty because its royalty was claiming most of the value of their nations while the producers eked out a living. Check living conditions in Ireland at the time when Ben Franklin visited that country. He could not believe the poverty that he saw with people working in slave shops for a pittance while living in mud squalid huts and an aristocracy controlling most of the profits from their work. Ben said that the poorest Americans of that time lived at a better standard than the Irish. Ben saw the same thing happen in Scotland and France, too. History shows that the French and Russian Revolutions occurred because of the greed of its aristocracy in not wanting to better the working classes of France using trickle-down economics.

 

We do not want any more trickle-down economics from Grand old Pigs. Obama knows. And many good Democrats and Republicans know this fact. So, stimulate we will. I.e. We will redistribute our nations wealth to those who actually produced it and not those who found a way to steal from the working classes. Hallelujah. It is about time.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding like a cliche drum beat one would have to say that Obama hit another home run. This one, however, was out of the park in fair territory. Obama has a fine set of positions on fixing our great nation.

 

On the other hand the weird governor from Lousiana made no sense at all. I accidently turned to a station and heard him say that Obama was spending money that we do not have. What an idiot! Of course we do not have it now. It has not been printed yet.

 

If you read my last message just before this one then you know what I am saying. Money is a funny paper-like substance. It represents the total value of everything that is USA. Making 1 trillion dollars of it only expands the allowable currency which no doubt is well over 100 trillion dollars. I.e. By allowing one trillion dollars to go into our working classes only expands our currency to 101 trillion. A dollar before the expansion will be worth a tad less but not very noticeable. It could cause a tiny bit of inflation, but it also can reverse the piggery of the Bushmurderingbastards rape of our economy. You see? If the working classes get a boost they will start spending and PRODUCING goods and services at a higher rate. This will make the total value of our nation's wealth worth more. I.e we will easily overcome the minor temporary inflationary effects by production of more goods and services from stimulating the working classes of America. This will in turn generate more taxes rendering our federal government in a much better position than it is now due to the assault of the Bushpigs. It may take 2 to 3 years to recover the damage caused by the Bushswines, however. Be patient. Obama will fix the mess, if he gets his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universal health care is at the heart of the opposite ways of thinking of liberalism versus conservatism. Currently, Obama is exploring ramifications of institutionalizing a health care system that covers all. No doubt he will run into much resistance from the Republicans who consider themselves ultra-conservative and wish to keep government out of all enterprises. Their basic position is 'laissez faire' and let private enterprise settle all health care with the profit-taking motive of capitalism.

 

The conservative position is wrong on this issue. We need to insure that all of our people get health care just like in Canada, France, Italy, UK,Cuba,.....etc... There is nothing wrong with allowing those who can afford a private health care system to have one that they are able to afford, however. Pretty much all of the nations with universal health care allow private medicine, too. The salient fact is that a private health care system will be extremely costly compared to an austere government program. This does not mean that the private care will be better. It may be worse. In fact, experience has shown that private medicine is not more effective. To illustrate, Canadians live 3 years longer than US citizens. The Canadian universal single-payer system costs 40 percent of the cost of health care per person in the USA. And US citizens are not even covered totally!!! All studies show that Canadians are healthier than US citizens. So, there is your proof that private profit-making health care is not more effective.

 

So, what should Obama do to institutionalize universal health care. There are many options. However, after deliberating on the issue the author of this topic decided that the only way we will achieve a universal health care system is for the government to form its own tax-funded health care system. Actually, it already exists. It is called Medicare. I.e. the federal government will have to open up Medicare as a public insurance for ALL US citizens. The effect of doing this will be to decimate the profits of the private medical system that is gouging tax payers with horrendous CEO bonuses of billions to families like the Frist family who operate one such plan. Just imagine how fast many of these profit-making machines will wilt when faced with the competition of a government controlled Medicare insurance that covers all. It is time to screw most of them out of business. They have screwed America plenty. No doubt doctors will flock to the Medicare universal insurance offered by the Federal government once enacted. The drug companies will be stymied because the best consumer of their products will be the government. The very rich might still wish to pay more for private insurance. So, let them. They will not get better health care as proven by the Canadien universal health care system.

 

By coincidence I happened to be listening to Thom Hartmann on Air America yesterday. He danced around the issue of a universal single-payer system and pretty much came up with the same plan that I just outlined. Obama will no doubt make the same realization. He is just trying to be open-minded to all of the affected parties at the moment. When it comes down to making it work he will have to use the realization that Thom and I have agreed is the most workable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the last message I mentioned the debacle of the Frist family who happens to have become billionaires off of our sorry-ass-for-profit medical system. There is much to the story of the Frist family. Readers in this forum should take the time to read the article "The Bad Doctor" subtitled Bill Frist's long record of corporate vices by Doug Ireland published in January 16, 2003. This article will go a long way in helping viewers to understand why we have been screwed out of decent health care in the USA as compared to at least 30 other industrialized nations. Bill Frist and his family are only the tip of the iceberg of profit-gouging on health care in the USA. We must support Obama in stopping the Health insurance industry from their greed. We cannot compete with nations who respect their families by guaranteeing that they will not be ruined by a major health problem as routinely happens in the USA. It is well-known that most personal bankruptcies occur as a result of health problems to bread-winners.

 

You can find the article "The Bad Doctor" on the internet as I have done. I will quote a few paragraphs of the article in order to get the point across that corruption in a profit-making system of health care is rampant in the USA. And it explains why the Canadian health care system beats the crap out of the one in the USA. Canadianslive 3 years longer, never worry about losing their fortune due to medical problems, and only pay on the average about 40% for medical care as compared to the USA where close to 50 million citizens do not even have medical insurance. I might add that you can find the study on comparing health care in Canada to the USA on the internet. The study was done some years ago at the University of Toronto. Most likely it has been updated since I viewed it last. But no doubt the results of the study are the same.

 

Some of you may not remember that Bill Frist was the Republican Senator who once thought that he might be a candidate for President of the USA. Frist is your typical Grand Old Pig who enjoyed feeding off of the blood, swet and toil of the working classes of America. His swine family did their part in making sure US citizens have not had universal health care like other decent nations. They are only one of many such corporate crooks swindling America via our bogus health-care for profit in the USA. It is instructive to see details on how easy it has been for one power-broker family to screw America using deregulation and lack of regulation. Remember this article was written in 2003.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: While TV gushed last week over the Republicans new Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, intervening in a traffic accident, portraying the former heart surgeon as a "Good Samaritan," in truth the GOP has simply replaced a racist with a corporate crook.

 

Frist was born rich, and got richer - thanks to massive criminal fraud by the family business. The basis of the Frist family fortune is HCA Inc. (Hospital Corporation of America), the largest-for-profit hospital chain in the country, which was founded by Frist's father and brother. And, just as Karl Rove was engineering the scuttling of Trent Lott and the elevation of Frist, the Bush Justice Department suddenly ended a near-decadelong federal investigation into how HCA for years had defrauded Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare (the federal program that covers the military and their families), giving the greedy health-care behemoth's executives a sweetheart settlement that kept them out of the can.

 

The government's case was that HCA kept two sets of books and fraudulently overbilled the government. The deal meant that HCA agreed to pay the government $631 million for its lucrative scams - which on top of previous fines, brought the total government penalties against the health-care conglomerate to a whopping $1.7 billion, the largest fraud settlement in history, breaking the old record set by Drexel Burnham (Recall the S&L debacle of the Grand old Pigs under the braindead Reagan's connection to Drexel Burnham, an investment firm that was headed up by Reagan's henchman Donald Regan before becoming the financial wizard for Reagan's cabinet).

 

The sweetheart deal also meant that HCA can continue to participate in Medicare. And, as part of the Bushies' deal shutting down what Deputy Assistant FBI Director Thomas Kubic called "one of the FBI's highest-priority white-collar crime investigations," no criminal charges were brought against the top HCA execs who presided over the illegal bilking of federal programs designed to aid the poor-and that includes Senator Frist's brother, Thomas, HCA's former CEO (and current director), who's been described by Forbes magazine as "one of the richest men in America," with a personal fortune estimated at close to 2 Billion.

 

What did HCA do? It inflated its expenses and billed the government for the overrun: it billed the government for services ineligible for reimbursement (like advertising and marketing costs). HCA violated both law and medical ethics when, as Forbes put it, "the company increased Medicare billings by exaggerating the seriousness of the illnesses they were treating. It also granted doctors partnerships in a company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors' referring patients to HCA. In addition, it gave doctors 'loans' that were never expected to be paid back, free rent, free office furniture - and free drugs from hospital pharmacies."

 

This is the ethical climate that reigned in the Frist family's money machine. In an unguarded moment, Senator Frist told the Boston Globe that conversations with his doctor father about the family calling were like "benign versions of the Godfather and Michael Corleone." Apparently the senator considers defrauding the government "benign." So too does the Bush White House, which dictated the Justice Department deal with HCA that let the crooks escape jail just as Frist was being anointed the Senate's majority leader. A pure coincidence in timing, of course.

...etc..

 

END OF QUOTE

 

Do you get it? If not, why not? Grand old pigs have fed off of the trough of the working classes hard earned tax money through scams like the health-care-for-profit one due to the cooperation of the Grand Old Pigs running the country. They are filth. They deserve prosecution for treason against our citizenry. They are why USA citizens are sicker than Canadians.

 

NO ONE SHOULD EVER MAKE PROFIT OFF OF THE MISERIES OF SICK PEOPLE. Every decent nation understands this. And that includes Cuba. Everyone should view Michael Moore's Sicko to get even more understanding how bastards like the Frists have screwed America from decent health care.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

 

Winston Churchill

 

Churchill is saying that you cannot have a heart and be a conservative.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Churchill is saying that you cannot have a heart and be a conservative.
I think that Churchill was really saying that the youth think with their hearts more than with reason. As we grow older and hopefully wiser it is natural to have had more success in life by reason than by following whimsical emotions. If you read this topic in its entirety then you will realize that the ideal political state of mind is to only choose POSITIVE conservative positions and POSITIVE liberal positions. Churchill was no doubt thinking along these lines. I.e. Both POSITIVE conservative and liberal stances are required to have a healthy progressive political mindset.

 

To really understand political positioning you have to realize that a conservative or liberal position can be +,-, or neutral. You see? It is stupid to only have positions that are all conservative or all liberal on issues. I also explained in previous messages that there exists a subjective factor as to whether you consider a position positive or negative. For instance, willingness to go to war can be positive or negative depending on the reasons behind going to war. Generally, going to war is ALWAYS a liberal position because it requires big government action. In fact, creating a military is a liberal big government program. Most of us believe that having a military is a POSITIVE liberal position. However, there are folks who simply do not believe that national defense is worth the money. Many countries do not have a military and do just fine. Assessing whether a position is liberal or conservative is cut and dried. A liberal position is always one sponsored by government. A conservative position is when big government ignores the issue and lets the public private sector determine its way of being handled.

 

Read this topic to gain insight into positioning in politics. You will never be confused again about what is liberal and what is conservative positioning, if you do. You may still have a quandary in deciding whether a position is positive, negative, or neutral, however. That is because moral and ethical decisions are subjective. For example, I believe that abortion should be a decision made by persons involved rather than big government. I.e. this would be a positive conservative stance on abortion in my way of thinking. The Pope would think my position is negative. The Pope has no worries about whether he will need to have an abortion due to circumstances like danger to the mother, deformed fetus, pregnancy before age 14, rape, incest,...etc... I.e. The Pope is all wet in thinking one size shoe fits all relative to the abortion issue. You see? I believe my position on this issue is as positive as positive can get. But consider this. I am conservative on the issue as to whether government should even consider abortion an issue to be decided by big government. Unfortunately, it is too late for that. The US Supreme decided that they had to make a positive liberal decision on this issue. They did just that in Roe V Wade. To my way of thinking this medical social matter should NEVER have ever been regulated in any way by any government whether local or federal including our courts. It should be decided by individuals involved with advice from professionals like doctors, clergy, psychologists, and psychiatrists. The final decision on abortion should be up to the potential mother involved. And that position would be a positive conservative one to my way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Churchill was really saying that the youth think with their hearts more than with reason. As we grow older and hopefully wiser it is natural to have had more success in life by reason than by following whimsical emotions. If you read this topic in its entirety then you will realize that the ideal political state of mind is to only choose POSITIVE conservative positions and POSITIVE liberal positions. Churchill was no doubt thinking along these lines. I.e. Both POSITIVE conservative and liberal stances are required to have a healthy progressive political mindset.

 

To really understand political positioning you have to realize that a conservative or liberal position can be +,-, or neutral. You see? It is stupid to only have positions that are all conservative or all liberal on issues. I also explained in previous messages that there exists a subjective factor as to whether you consider a position positive or negative. For instance, willingness to go to war can be positive or negative depending on the reasons behind going to war. Generally, going to war is ALWAYS a liberal position because it requires big government action. In fact, creating a military is a liberal big government program. Most of us believe that having a military is a POSITIVE liberal position. However, there are folks who simply do not believe that national defense is worth the money. Many countries do not have a military and do just fine. Assessing whether a position is liberal or conservative is cut and dried. A liberal position is always one sponsored by government. A conservative position is when big government ignores the issue and lets the public private sector determine its way of being handled.

 

Read this topic to gain insight into positioning in politics. You will never be confused again about what is liberal and what is conservative positioning, if you do. You may still have a quandary in deciding whether a position is positive, negative, or neutral, however. That is because moral and ethical decisions are subjective. For example, I believe that abortion should be a decision made by persons involved rather than big government. I.e. this would be a positive conservative stance on abortion in my way of thinking. The Pope would think my position is negative. The Pope has no worries about whether he will need to have an abortion due to circumstances like danger to the mother, deformed fetus, pregnancy before age 14, rape, incest,...etc... I.e. The Pope is all wet in thinking one size shoe fits all relative to the abortion issue. You see? I believe my position on this issue is as positive as positive can get. But consider this. I am conservative on the issue as to whether government should even consider abortion an issue to be decided by big government. Unfortunately, it is too late for that. The US Supreme decided that they had to make a positive liberal decision on this issue. They did just that in Roe V Wade. To my way of thinking this medical social matter should NEVER have ever been regulated in any way by any government whether local or federal including our courts. It should be decided by individuals involved with advice from professionals like doctors, clergy, psychologists, and psychiatrists. The final decision on abortion should be up to the potential mother involved. And that position would be a positive conservative one to my way of thinking.

 

 

I very much like this reasoning and agree that was Churchill's point. Where I think we have problems with this today is that both parties (but, in my mind especially the conservative - GOP - party) conservative is not conservative at all (it is quite radical and anti-democratic) and, to a lesser degree, the liberal (DEM) party is not properly representing liberalism. This dichotomy has broken down and the lines are severely blurred and confused. This is not to our benefit, because the confusion distorts the will of the people.

 

Always enjoy your analysis, Joe.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I very much like this reasoning and agree that was Churchill's point. Where I think we have problems with this today is that both parties (but, in my mind especially the conservative - GOP - party) conservative is not conservative at all (it is quite radical and anti-democratic) and, to a lesser degree, the liberal (DEM) party is not properly representing liberalism. This dichotomy has broken down and the lines are severely blurred and confused. This is not to our benefit, because the confusion distorts the will of the people.

 

Always enjoy your analysis, Joe.

Thanks for your observations. You are right on target in assessing that few understand what they mean when they use terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative'. It does not help that the alleged right wing conservative talking heads like Limbaugh encourage confused thinking by making believe that their confused thinking is conservative when in reality it is a mish-mash of mostly negative conservative and liberal positions. Of course, the talking heads prey on the foolishness of the general public by pretending that there is some sort of battle going on between the liberal and the conservative positions.

 

The truth is that both positions can be positive and can reside comfortably side by side. There is no real battle excepting between foolish negative positions versus positive one. The right wing talking head shows sponsored by Rupert Murdoch's Fox Network would dry up, if they were truthful. The progressive talk shows, though scant in number, try not to emphasize a make-believe battle between the liberal position and the conservative ones. Few politicians and pundits ever even use the labels 'conservative' or 'liberal' any more because they are aware of the confusion caused by the talking-heads like Limbaugh, Hannity, Krauthammer, Hume, O'Reilly, and more lesser known jaw-flappers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the hullabaloo about earmarks all about? Few citizens even realize the function of earmarks. The salient fact is that little would be done in a government that did not have a flexible way of negotiations between Congress persons. Earmarks are a quid pro quo way of Congressional sponsors of important legislation ito get other members of Congress to support it. Who needs a rigid system that has no effective way of influencing outcomes on legislation? Without earmarks much valuable legislation would not occur. Politics at the Congressional level is about negotiations. Johnson was able to get much legislation passed because he was a master of influencing Congress using quid pro quo thinking. Few earmarks are 'bridges to no where'. Most are very valuable special interests involving local regions tied to individual Congress persons. Calling them all pork is foolish. The flexibility of earmarks allows local regions to participate in federal legislation. It makes it possible for money to be directed towards important local needs. What could be smarter than that?

 

Flexibility in government is highly desirable. Many examples exist. Our IRS tax system is a monument to flexibility. Our tax system allows directing our economy and way of life. It is clear that Obama and the Congress understand very well how they can direct the economy by creating currency and directing it to where it will lead towards the objective of creating employment, environmental improvements, infra-stucture build-up, social changes, health care, and every other area that makes life better for the nation as a whole.

 

Our system may not be perfect but there has never been a better one created throughout history. It is a system that allows peaceful change for the better. It explains why so many European nations followed our lead in the 1700s and 1800s. Most progressive nations enjoy the same flexibility that we have because of our experiment with a democracy based on an amazing document known as our Constitution. Our Constitution used previous historical documents as guideposts. So, we should give credit to the many great thinkers throughout history. The Magna Carta, for example, has many of the same features as our Constitution.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ho, hum....What has changed in politics since the 20s.

 

The politics of fear dominate the GOPs attempts to run the USA. Looking the other way regarding the over 50 warnings of terrorists planning to attack the USA within its boundaries were ignored in order to generate a Pearl Harbor. This fact is easily documented by reviewing the actions of the PNAC organized criminals who planned and eventually took over our federal government using lies, deceptions, influence, election-rigging, corruption of our US Supreme Court and other nefarious ways of claiming our presidency. We know the extent which the lying criminal elements of the Grand Old Pig party went through to effect a peaceful coup d'etat in 2000. The next 8 years were spent by the criminal bunch trying to convince the public that they and only they could protect the USA from attacks by terrorists. They fear-mongered. And their strategy worked despite the fact that Clinton's anti-terrorists strategies got the job done without costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

 

Fear-mongering is a well-known effective strategy for influencing the public. Nothing has changed in that regard. No doubt there will be future terrorist attacks. There is no fool-proof way to prevent such attacks. Still, methods used by the Clinton administration had a very high hit ratio. Clinton relied on international help. For example, Canadian customs help prevent the millenium attack planned by Al Qaeda. More recently the UK intelligence stopped a massive international attack planned in London by an Al Qaeda cell. Terrorism can be minimized through international cooperation, but never entirely prevented. The salient fact is that there is no evidence to support that the GOP could get the job done better. Yet they persist in using a strategy of fear-mongering claiming to be the great protectors of the USA.

 

Here is a quote from H.W. Brand's book: Traitor To His Class. The book gives an accurate biography of Franklin Roosevelt's life and rise to the presidency. This quote demonstrates how the GOP in the 20s attempted to use the politics of fear for getting votes. It is a direct quote from Roosevelt's Democrat convention speech in 1924.

 

BEGIN QUOTE: Roosevelt summoned the spirit of the Democrats' progressive former president, only recently deceased, on behalf of Smith's vision. "It was the illustrious Woodrow Wilson, my revered chief and yours, who said, "The great voice of America does not come from the university. It comes in a murmur from the hills and the woods, from the farms, the factories, and the mills--rolling on and gaining volume until it comes to us from the homes of the common people." The common people were the core constituency of the Democrats, and among the common people the dreams of America never flagged. "Four years ago, LYING OPPONENTS SAID THATTHE COUNTRY WAS TIRED OF IDEALS--THEY WAGED A CAMPAIGN BASED ON AN APPEAL TO PREJUDICE, BASED ON THE DRAGGING OUT OF BOGIES AND HOBGOBLINS, THE SUBTLE ENCOURAGEMENT OF FALSE FEARS." But America had not lost her faith, Roosevelt insisted. "Idealism is of her very heart's blood. Tricked once we have been. Millions of voters are waiting today for the opportunity next November to wreak their vengeance on those deceivers."

 

END QUOTE

 

You see? Politics has not changed much. The Bushbunch relied heavily on gaining support using fear-mongering tactics just like the GOP did in the 20s. Notice how Roosevelt showed his support for the working classes in his speech. This is still the basic philosophy of the Obama administration. It is time for America to wise-up again like they did in 1932 and finally voted for a president who made a better America for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thom Hartmann believes that a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University has the right BIG idea as to what has gone wrong with the US economy and by extension to the rest of the world. It is not clear what the professor's first name is but his last name is Batra. His first name might be Ravi. No doubt he is from India. He speaks with a British Indian accent.

 

Professor Batra is a BIG thinker. He believes that the BIG picture of how our economy has evolved tells what is wrong with it and even more tells what is likely the cure for its ailments. Batra's big thinking gives much insight into what has gone wrong with the USA economy and what caused it.

 

COMMENT OF TOPIC FOUNDER: Some may know that the originator of this topic believes that it is foolish to pick at small details before first considering the BIG picture relative to any issue. Moreover, there is virtually always a big picture to consider in complex issues like the economy. If one thinks BIG then the minor details will make sense and be viewed proportionately to their likely impacts. Trying to make sense out of major issues by thinking in the opposite direction quite frequently leads to overemphasizing some relatively minor detail way out of proportion to its contribution.

 

Everyone should know the parable of blind men trying to describe an elephant by feeling different parts of its body. It is a well known parable. One blind man describes the elephant as though the tail that he feels is the most important part of the elephant while another feels an ear and bases his opinions on the nature of the elephant's ear according to its shape and texture. This is the kind of thinking that goes on repetively by pundits on commercial media networks relative to the economy. They use pettyfoggery type thinking in order to keep the flow of words going never minding whether the big picture belies their opinionating. Many bloggers forums are guilty of this same type of pettyfoggey thinking. END OF TOPIC FOUNDER's COMMENT

 

Batra's says that what has gone wrong is really quite simple, if viewed in the big picture. Batra, like Hartmann and myself, believes that the BIG picture is simple. Most of the time the BIG picture is so simple that it often makes it hard to believe. After all, how could the basic cause of the mess like the one we have in USA's economy be described so simply? This would seem unreasonable to pettyfoggers who keep basing opinions on minor details way out of proportion to real impacts.

 

So, what does Batra say about the economy? Well, simply put, he says productivity of our work force has gone up rampantly in the past 30 years while wages have stagnated or disappeared entirely. The effect has been to kill the demand side in favor of the supply side of our economy. What Batra is saying is that the answer to fixing our economy is to give the actual producers of our economy their fair share commensurate with the increases in productivity instead of bigger paychecks for managment, stockholders, bondholders and other nonproductive investors.

 

Unfortunately, outsourcing, insourcing, and a host of many mindless attempts to squeeze more profits for the few has resulted in screwing the workers out of their fair share while causing enormous profits inequitably distributed to a small percent of the US population. Many workers have simply lost jobs and have had wages reduced due to technological improvements in productivity, union-busting, outsourcing cheaper labor to 3rd world nations, insourcing of illegal workers, and insourcing of legal immigrants taking professional opportunities away from US born citizens who are more than qualified but are routinely replaced with cheaper foreign help. The US citizen/worker has simply not obtained a fair share of increased productivity according to Batra. No doubt Batra can produce the statistics to show that what he says is true. He has published a best seller on this very topic. Needless to say, this imbalance in sharing productivity with the workforce has resulted in a spiraling downturn in the USA economy with its resulting impact on the rest of the world. Batra traces the downturn to the start of the union-busting, deregulating Reagan administration to the present times. Deregulation and taking away the workforce's share of productivity has left the door wide open to swindle the working classes into hopeless indebtedness paying interest beyond their means to pay.

 

The answer to solving the economic woes is obviously finding a way to give workers their fair share. Neither Hartmann or Batra believe that this will happen without some big change in the way our nation views its workforce. Batra claims that helping the big corporations does not address the main problem of spreading the wealth equitably to the workforce. Hartmann, like myself, believes that unions have to be resurrected to their former glory. Hartmann also believes like myself that the minimum wage has to be reset to a living wage. It was not clear from the interview what Batra sees as the solution. However, he did not seem to support lifting minimum wage as a major way to help solve the problem with the US economy. Probably, you will have to read his book to understand how he would solve the US economy problem.

 

Hartmann explained that the US worker has systematically used his credit cards to help finance their financial undoing due to not getting a fair share of productivity. Then Hartman explained that some where along the line the US worker discovered that he could refinance his home repeatedly to pay for expenses that have climbed unmercifully like college education costs, medical costs, and so forth. The American worker has systematically indebted themselves to the point where they cannot pay the interest on their house-of card-debt-building-deficit-financing through credit cards, second jobs, home refinancing, and working wives.

Edited by Dr. Joe B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you, Hartmann and Batra are correct. Policy since Reagan and the advent of the Supply Side scam has been to drive down wages relative to productivity and award all the benefits of increased productivity to the owners or investors - something Adam Smith said would undermine the very basis of capitalism, itself. In order to stoke consumption to compensate for the lost earning power, credit has been loosened steadily and the middle class has fallen into credit traps to finance the standard of living the middle class is encouraged to live. Madison Avenue helps crank up the pressure to turn Americans into what Kevin Phillips has called "reflexive purchasing machines."

 

So now it's all broken down. The task IS to rebuild the middle class. Wages need to be tied to productivity growth. Wealth can no longer concentrate if this economy is to be restored to something that can support us anywhere near what we have had the last fifty years. And I suspect our lifestyle will be more austere nd credit far more difficult to come by. And - oh yeah - Supply Side will find itself in the ashcan of history.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And - oh yeah - Supply Side will find itself in the ashcan of history.

 

Comical how you can claim that, when you don't even know what it is.

 

A true con artist at work. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comical how you can claim that, when you don't even know what it is.

 

A true con artist at work. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I certainly do clem. Please don't pollute this thread with your nonsense. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. Take your stupid war to other threads.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly do clem. Please don't pollute this thread with your nonsense. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it. Take your stupid war to other threads.

 

Pollute this thread? ^_^

 

You're declaring Supply Side Economics to be dead, yet you don't even know what it is. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Your very presence on this board is pollution. It's impossible to have debate with someone who can't be trusted not to lie about the time of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderates against all!

 

Hello Liberals,

As this is my first post, I just wanted to get out and introduce myself. I am a conservative.

 

 

:P

Edited by Skeptic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:P
Many consider themselves conservatives. Few have a precise definition of what determines that they are conservative. It is very easy to define what we mean by a conservative or liberal stance on any given atomic issue. By atomic issue we mean a basic issue that is not just part of a complex system of issues. For example, communism is not an atomic issue. It is a complex of basic stances on issue that are for the most part left wing and liberal government control. Laissez faire thinking is the nature of conservatism. I.e. keep government out of the issue. Recall Reagan's famous statement about the scariest thing that he could think of was: I'm from the government...and I come to help.you. You see? Government intervention into an issue is always a liberal idea while lack of government intervention is the conservative laissez faire approach that Reagan favored.

 

Knowing the nature of a conservative stance on an atomic issue how would you define a person to be conservative or liberal? Some how your definition has to explain that you are not totally against government intervention otherwise you would be an anarchist. Anarchists are the perfect conservatives. They do not believe in government even existing. If government does not exist, then no intervention can happen. So, are you an anarchist? Or do you have a mixture of both conservative stances and liberal stances..... hopefully all positive ones whether liberal or conservative positions? How would you devine yourself as a conservative? Would your definition be consistent with all of the other folks who think they are conservative?

 

If you cannot answer this question, they you are a self-delusionary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many consider themselves conservatives. Few have a precise definition of what determines that they are conservative. It is very easy to define what we mean by a conservative or liberal stance on any given atomic issue. By atomic issue we mean a basic issue that is not just part of a complex system of issues. For example, communism is not an atomic issue. It is a complex of basic stances on issue that are for the most part left wing and liberal government control. Laissez faire thinking is the nature of conservatism. I.e. keep government out of the issue. Recall Reagan's famous statement about the scariest thing that he could think of was: I'm from the government...and I come to help.you. You see? Government intervention into an issue is always a liberal idea while lack of government intervention is the conservative laissez faire approach that Reagan favored.

 

Knowing the nature of a conservative stance on an atomic issue how would you define a person to be conservative or liberal? Some how your definition has to explain that you are not totally against government intervention otherwise you would be an anarchist. Anarchists are the perfect conservatives. They do not believe in government even existing. If government does not exist, then no intervention can happen. So, are you an anarchist? Or do you have a mixture of both conservative stances and liberal stances..... hopefully all positive ones whether liberal or conservative positions? How would you devine yourself as a conservative? Would your definition be consistent with all of the other folks who think they are conservative?

 

If you cannot answer this question, they you are a self-delusionary.

 

My jab ay Reaganista was a joke. My interest was more in your writing about Ravi Bhatra and Thom Hartmann. I commented on that. I'm more interested in your feedback about whether you think I'm also delusionary about that.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow you ARE an idiot. If you think that Fascism is socialism you're stupid. If you think Liberalism is socialism, you're even Dumber. If you think that Liberalism has anything to do with communism or fascism you're even dumber!

 

 

You are living a fantasy, utopian dream if you cannot see the connections between all of the ism's you list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would take the OP a step further and say liberals represent what's wrong with America. They collect the most welfare, fill the jails, ruin neighborhoods, commit the most crime, whine/protest everything they can, support terrorists, welcome criminal aliens, and are mostly just pathetic losers. They think educating themselves makes them smart. The liberal college grads are just morons with a degree. :rolleyes:

You are so repetitive that it is getting boring. Every post you say the exact same thing. besides the fact that you do nothing but generalize. You lump all Libs into the same mold, whether they agree with all liberal ideas or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My jab ay Reaganista was a joke. My interest was more in your writing about Ravi Bhatra and Thom Hartmann. I commented on that. I'm more interested in your feedback about whether you think I'm also delusionary about that.
No, you are not a delusionary. But many are who consider themselves conservative. You are quite correct in agreeing with Bhattra and Hartmann. Hartmann spelled Ravi's last name on the radio the way that I spelled it in the post. Your spelling Bhattra seems more likely. I'd like to get a copy of Batra/Bhattra's book. So, I guess I better get the correct spelling.

 

Seriously, many folks label themselves and others as liberals or conservatives without having a foggiest idea of what they mean. Rush Limbaugh does it daily. I am sure that if you consider yourself to be a conservative then you have a concept in mind. if so, what is it?

 

Some years ago on another political forum I tried to come up with a survey that would identify those who tend to have more conservative positions than liberal ones. It was a reasonable survey that probably would pick up a tendency to have more conservative views than liberal ones for folks who consider themselves conservatives. Myself, I scored a perfect 10 out 20 conservative and 10 out of 20 for liberal. So, I define myself as a moderate. I suggested in that message of many years ago that some enterprizing young political science major should do a serious survey of at least 100 questions. As far as I know no one did such a survey. I will find that old message and repost it on this forum when I have a vacant moment.

 

My guess is that most folks who consider themselves conservative are likely to be closer to being a moderate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...