Which Side Are You On?

[georgephillip]

The Constitution once protected US citizens from warrantless surveillance in their homes.

Remember?

The age old conundrum - nothing can protect against men without principle, morals or conscience whose primary motivation is self-serving.

I can't help wondering what would happen if the US started filling its prisons with the richest 1% of its population?

How would Wall Street react if the first conviction for securities or control fraud resulted in 25 to life, meaning convicts would serve 25 years BEFORE their first parole hearing?

Many (most?) of those "men without principles" were born believing they are above man's laws.

They need to be disabused of that notion for this country to become free.

 

[daveman]

The Constitution once protected US citizens from warrantless surveillance in their homes.

Remember?

The age old conundrum - nothing can protect against men without principle, morals or conscience whose primary motivation is self-serving.

I can't help wondering what would happen if the US started filling its prisons with the richest 1% of its population?

How would Wall Street react if the first conviction for securities or control fraud resulted in 25 to life, i.e., meaning convicts would serve 25 years BEFORE their first parole hearing?

Many (most?) of those :men without principles" were born believing they are above man's laws.

They need to be disabused of that notion for this country to become free.

Great Gaea, you're eaten alive with envy.

 

[georgephillip]

If (when) the US economy deteriorates to such an extent that as many Americans are paying attention to politics in the same way we did during the week after 911, that's when I expect the state to begin actively interfering with cyberspace.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any possibility of winning the class war without more people paying attention.

No one wins the class war. It's a suicide pact.

I think you're very close to the truth with that, bripat.

If the Fall of Man relates to an actual historical event, I would nominate the formation of the first private fortunes.

Fortunes that could not have come into existence at that time without the institution of chattel slavery with half the human population (the half with inferior upper body strength) being anointed First Slaves.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't help wondering what would happen if the US started filling its prisons with the richest 1% of its population?

Mass starvation would be the likely result.

Your hatred of the rich really is amazing. What you make obvious is that lefties are not motivated by "compassion" for the disadvantaged. Their primary motivation is envy and hatred of those who are having a better time in life. Lefties are primarily losers who want revenge on those who make their inadequacies so obvious.

They would destroy the country to get that revenge.

Pathetic.

 

[bripat9643]

No one wins the class war. It's a suicide pact.

I think you're very close to the truth with that, bripat.

If the Fall of Man relates to an actual historical event, I would nominate the formation of the first private fortunes.

Fortunes that could not have come into existence at that time without the institution of chattel slavery with half the human population (the half with inferior upper body strength) being anointed First Slaves.

Apparently that went right over your head.

By "the class war" I mean the attempt by people like you to destroy the rich is a suicide pact. If you ever succeed, this country will be in ruins. The people you want to destroy are the people who make this country work. You're like a terrorist who threatens to shoot the pilot of the plane he's hijacking.

 

[Provocateur]

Anybody remember Archie and Edith?

"Everybody pulled his weight.
Didn't need no welfare state...
Those were the days!"

Archie Bunker, protagonist of the popular 1970s TV sitcom "All in the Family" and today's Tea Party movement seem to share a misconception of just how "conservative" the 1930s, 40s and 50s actually were.

Were those decades a time when hard-working Americans pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps?

"It's true that Americans worked hard during these years.

"But the bootstraps stuff is nonsense.

"The 30s through 50s were the time of the New Deal, low-cost loans from the Federal Housing Administration, the GI Bill, huge subsidies for defense contractors during the Cold War and other industries that employed millions of people, massive transfer of funding from cities to the burgeoning suburbs, federal projects like interstate highway construction and the space program, generous investment in public schools, record union membership, high tax rates for corporations and the wealthy, good job benefits, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which ensured financial stability in old age and medical crises...

"On the evidence of history, calling today's Republican Party and their Tea Party supporters 'conservative' is as absurd as calling supporters of civil rights and racial justice 'reactionary' because they invoke the values of the Reconstruction Era."

Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams

It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the liberal ideology, specifically progressivism, can create such a Nanny State that a 350 pound man can claim to be an "adult baby" while living off the sweat and tears of hardworking Americans.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/273415/thumbs/s-ADULT-BABY-large300.jpg



Of course, his bottle-wielding "nurse" is also receiving benefits off the backs of hard working American taxpayers.

It is remarkable that liberals think they have somehow created a better society with their desire to force people to become exclusively dependent on the hard working taxpayers of this nation.

I believe that many liberals tend to forget that the government PRODUCES nothing. (Remember the woman wanting some of the Obama Stash?)


Liberal leaders simply take from producers and pass it along. There are now more takers than givers in our society. It is why our founders warned against a "Democracy" as opposed to a Republic. People will always vote to get their hands on the treasury.


As to your point regarding education funding, which you felt important enough to bold in your OP:

 

[Poli_Sigh]

The age old conundrum - nothing can protect against men without principle, morals or conscience whose primary motivation is self-serving.

I can't help wondering what would happen if the US started filling its prisons with the richest 1% of its population?

How would Wall Street react if the first conviction for securities or control fraud resulted in 25 to life, i.e., meaning convicts would serve 25 years BEFORE their first parole hearing?

Many (most?) of those :men without principles" were born believing they are above man's laws.

They need to be disabused of that notion for this country to become free.

Great Gaea, you're eaten alive with envy.

Envious! Why on earth would anyone want to be one of those sleaze balls? Never having or getting enough of this material world isn't a position to be envied. Nor is anyone who willingly compromises principle or trust in order to gain wealth and/or position. No matter how long they live or how much wealth and property they accumulate, it will never be enough to keep them happy or satisfied for very long.

Needy greed isn't appealing to anyone other than another needy greedy individual.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Agreed, Sparky.

I just don't see how we'll ever accomplish a real Change of that magnitude by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.

a one party system, the $$$ party, cloaked in rhetorials engineered toward the illusion of choice George... This is why any 3rd party is usually demonized , and summarily dismissed btw...

Wall Street and the richest 1% of Americans control both major parties in this country through campaign donations primarily.

With the rare exception of a Senator Sanders or a Kucinich or Ron Paul (?) limiting change to Republican OR Democrat Changes Nothing fundamental about the class war.

they're painted radical for opting out of the status quo, the usual class envy canards follow them like ugly on an ape

FLUSH a hundred (or two or three) Republicans AND Democrats from DC in a single news cycle and replace them with established third party candidates already on many ballots (primarily Greens and Libertarians) and Wall Street and the Pentagon have problems they have never seen before. (and so do the rest of us)

well, we're talking epidemic proportions now, the rubicon's been crossed....

The internet makes it conceivable to motivate the 30 to 40 percent of eligible voters who usually don't see anything worth voting FOR to get involved and vote AGAINST the status quo.

agreed the 'net can be enlightening, for those who effectively utilize it's depth and breath.

in fact, were i wearing my tin hat, i'd lay claim it's actively monitored

If (when) the US economy deteriorates to such an extent that as many Americans are paying attention to politics in the same way we did during the week after 911, that's when I expect the state to begin actively interfering with cyberspace.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any possibility of winning the class war without more people paying attention.

So is it safe to say you are indeed waging "class warfare".....
Shame on you for being the jealous type. The person who envies then expects to get a piece of what others have without so much as lifting a finger to go out and earn it on your own.
Typical lib "gimme" mentality. You people are thugs, takers and non -producers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Rubbermaid would not have moved by their own choice. But, if they want to market their product at the World's Largest Retailer, Rubbermaid had to dance to Wal*Mart's tune. The same dynamic was in play for Sterling China.

As for steel, the decision was made to ship the works off to Asia to take advantage of the dirt cheap labor there. As well as the lax environmental regulations. If you think we should roll our standard of living back to the standards set in Singapore just so a company can make steel here, I submit that this idea can not, under any circumstances be thought of as a good thing for America. A vibrant middle class is essential to maintaining our republic.

Otherwise, we have the rich and the poor and the company making the decision for society. Kind of like Rhodesia.

Okay, let's say the steel companies stayed here and had to pay high environmental costs and higher wages. How did you expect them to compete with foreign steel then and stay in business? Wouldn't the end result be the same? No more steel companies? Or are you deluding yourself that they could have just made a smaller profit and stay operational?

YES !
In theory,it's easy.
Under educated and highly overpaid murkins could have geared their little brains to say fuck foreign steel, cars, electronics and other and products and kept the show at home.
Instead ? Greed took over, as it always does.
A good drywall guy makes (or made) about $25/hr in the empire.
The same guy in Vietnam makes about $4.00-4.50, if he's good.
He has the same Samsung TV, washer and Dryer as his murkin counterpart and paid the same price.
The difference is he has one. The murkin has 4.
If the murkin would have bought a Zenith for $1000 ( only one), made in America ( the old country), he'd be on the same level as the Vietnamese guy.
He bought a jet ski and season tickets to NASCAR instead.
He dun good ! The poor bastards at the Zenith factory had to go to work as a cab driver.
FUCK'EM ! That's captalizzm !

Here's the problem. Zenith does not manufacture the models people want. For example, according to Zenith's website, they offer just 6 flat panel tv models. The largest being 46". Zenith does not make the most popular types of flat panel tv's which are Plasma and LED.
BTW all of the major "foreign" manufacturers have North American corporate headquarters here in the US . These companies employ thousands of American workers. Where's the problem? Zenith - LCD HDTV
OH...can you please tell me where a drywall hanger makes $25 per hour? Unless that is in one of the heavily trade unionized high cost cities, that kind of money doesn't exist.
BTW most drywall hangers are paid by the square foot, not by the hour,
What you support is protectionism and trade wars. Newsflash, nobody wins.
Goods become largely unavailable and of course expensive. Who needs that!

 

[thereisnospoon]

In the mid fifties, "generosity was voted the most conspicuous American characteristic, followed by friendliness, understanding, piety, love of freedom, and progressivism. The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness." William Manchester in "The Glory and the Dream" quoting George Gallup's Institute of public opinion.

The past is often a fantasy, it seems human nature only remembers what it desires or dislikes about the past, reality is far away. The sixties brought an incredible reaction and FDR and LBJ's attempts to create a more just and fair society bothered the well heeled. Add in the another stupid war Vietnam and you have a requirement for a scapegoat. Find a scapegoat and you establish focus. History is full of this stuff. Another change was the growth of the 'Contented' class as Galbraith names them. Once you have yours the others don't count and the past confirms it.

"To serve contentment, there were and are three basic requirements. One is the need to defend the general limitation on government as regards the economy; there must be a doctrine that offers a feasible presumption against government intervention...The second, more specific need is to find social justification for the untrammeled, uninhibited pursuit and possession of wealth....There is need for demonstration that the pursuit of wealth or even less spectacular well-being serves a serious, even grave social purpose....The third need is to justify a reduced sense of public responsibility for the poor. Those so situated, the members of the functional and socially immobilised underclass, must, in some very real way, be seen as the architects of their own fate. If not, they could be, however marginally, on the conscience of the comfortable." John Kenneth Galbraith, The Culture of Contentment

Judt's book is insightful. "For anyone born after 1945, the welfare state and its institutions were not a solution to earlier dilemmas: they were simply the normal conditions of life - and more than a little dull. The baby boomers, entering university in the mid sixties, had only ever known the world of improving life chances, generous medical and educational services, optimistic prospects of a upward social mobility and - perhaps above all - an indefinable but ubiquitous sense of security. The goals of an earlier generation of reformers were no longer of interest to their successors. On the contrary they were increasingly perceived as restrictions upon the self-expression and freedom of the individual." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land' Amazon.com: Ill Fares the Land (9781594202766): Tony Judt: Books

The American faults listed were petty: shallowness, egotism, extravagance, preoccupation with money, and selfishness."
That sums up liberalism in one sentence.
Oh, trying to pass off opinion as fact is in very poor form. Try another tact.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why were they not profitable?

In the case of the steel mills, they were old and not equipped to produce profitably. So, Reagan gave steel makers a tax break. I'm assuming the windfall was to retool their works and get competative again. But, for example, US Steel diversified and bought Aristech Chemical then they shuttered their mills and shipped the equipment to Asia.

Rubbermaid couod not produce their products at a price point acceptable to Wal*Mart. Wal*Mart encouraged Rubbermaid to box up the factory and send it to China so Rubbermaid products could be sold at a price acceptable to Wal*Mart.

Interesting! The steel mills were 'old' and not 'equipped' to make a profit so they shipped the 'old equipment' to Asia. I say nonsense.

High taxes and unreasonable union demands put them out of business is just my guess.

Add this....US based companies sat by while foreign companies modernized their facilities or built new and far more efficient plants. They reduced labor costs by tons. This while US plants under the thumb of unions, continued the status quo with facilities that require far too many people to operate them. Union bosses made the mistake of believing manufacturing would never change thus protecting jobs for the union members.
The pressures from global competition, demands of customers wanting product at lower cost and with much shorter lead time caused US based plants to scramble to cut costs. Unions objected and attempted to hold companies feet to the fire and ended up strangling steel mfgrs with high labor costs. Eventually something had to give. In the early 80's, the US Steel industry began to contract and 20 years later it is all but non-existent.
There are people who believe they can simply dig their heels in to the ground and demand the steel industry return to pre 1980's conditions. Not gonna happen.

 

[georgephillip]

Common Dreams? They should rename that site to Common Drug-Fueled Paranoid Fantasies.

Neocons! Booga booga!

Which should make it relatively easy for a "proud" conservative to explain why neo-cons embrace the Second Amendment yet decline to apply the Constitution to the denial of habeas corpus? Is it pride, vanity or stupidity that enables neo-cons to defend the 2010 Citizens United ruling "even though the Constitution grants no rights to corporations and the Founding Fathers warned against the excessive power of monied interests."

Do you personally think it's coincidental Corporate personhood was enshrined at the same time Jim Crow and the Robber Barrons reared their rich, white conservative heads?

See if you can refute the message and not the messenger, for once.

Which Side Are You On? New Language for a New Political Reality | Common Dreams

Looks like your dopey thread and your premise that there is a battle has been blown to smithereens.
Now you're simply trying to deflect and dodge with a bunch of nonsense.
Jim Crow...
If you wanted to start a thread on civil rights, you should have.
Look Georgie, you have an anti corp, anti capitalist bias. You give the impression that you'd rather government confiscate all wealth, keep the lion's share and distribute the crumbs for the masses.
Government appears to be your hero and your mommy and daddy.
You have no right to expect others to simply surrender to your ideas. And not wishing to do so does not make us bad people.

Part of the impetus behind Jim Crow was divide and conquer, something conservatives have been perfecting since Charles the First applied the tactic in Northern Ireland early in the 17th Century.

Capitalists reacted to widespread labor unrest and the reforms of the Progressive Era by driving a wedge between recently arrived mostly white immigrant labor agitators and African Americans by employing Jim Crow. Two groups of workers who should have united around economic principles were divided by the capitalists on the basis of race.

That's not nonsense.
That's US History.

Capitalism is insanity imho since it requires infinite growth on a planet of finite resources.

As far as the Nanny State's concerned the rich conservatives are every bit as adept at using government for their ends as are liberals:

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[georgephillip]

What drove those companies away?

Greed.

The same thing driving the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The same thing driving Israel's occupation of Area C and Gaza.
The same thing driving "Government" Sachs.
The same thing driving the wealth inequality in the US.

Which side are you on?

Greed.HA!!!!
all you lily livered liberals want government to perform money grabs in the hopes government will give some of the money to YOU!!!!
So who's the greedy one now, genius?

Has it ever occurred to you the rich have used government to attain their current monopolyl of wealth?

"This issue (the Market vs the Government) is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy. If government policies ensure that specific types of workers (e.g. doctors, lawyers, economists) are in relatively short supply, then they ensure that these workers will do better than the types of workers who are plentiful.

"It is also essential to understand that there is direct redistribution involved in this story.

"If restricting the supply of doctors raises the wages of doctors, then all the non-doctors in the country are worse off, just as if the government taxed all non-doctors in order to pay a tax credit to doctors.

"Higher wages for doctors mean that everyone in the country will be forced to pay more for health care.

"As conservatives fully understand when they promote policies that push down wages for large segments of the country’s work force, lower wages for others means higher living standards for those who have their wages or other income protected."

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[Antiderivative]

I am a free market liberal who believes in externalities (i.e. one of the strongest arguments for government intervention).

I find myself on the outside of mainstream politics happening in D.C. I am not being represented.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Interesting! The steel mills were 'old' and not 'equipped' to make a profit so they shipped the 'old equipment' to Asia. I say nonsense.

High taxes and unreasonable union demands put them out of business is just my guess.

Oh I think cheap foreign labor helped too. Before Reagan threw this nation into the World Market, perhaps he might have thought about a labor force making $10 an hour competing with a labor force glad to make $10 a month. So before you start blaming all the wrong reasons, try on a couple of new ones, like the unmitigated greed of big business.

By the way had management acknowledged early on the reality that it needed labor in order to achieve success, there would have been no need for those nasty old labor unions to form in the first place. I believe it's called doing the right thing. Something Winston Churchill observed that America did only after trying everything else.

Our entry into the world market was inevitable. The opposite would have been isolationism and protectionist trade policies. Nobody wins. Least of all, the consumer.

 

[georgephillip]

Oh...Ok....Nice try Gerogie..
Back then, this was called a "hand up". Now it's viewed as an expected "hand out".
Too many of us look upon social saafety nets as " you owe me".
That's the difference.
BTW, never refer to taxes and "forced sacrifice" as investments. An investment in it's concept has a potrential for positive financial return.
Government plans LOSE money. All of them. As a matter of fact,, govt programs are over stuffed inefficient bureaucracies that cosnume taxpayer resources and look to consume more.

Were those who fought WWII "owed" the GI Bill?

How about their children, the millions of boomers now facing retirement?
Are they "owed" Social Security and Medicare benefits they've contributed to for decades?

Taxes are investments in democracy.
They fund the infrastructure that enables corporations to exist, much less prosper by outsourcing.
What has greater potential for positive financial return than public education?

For thousands of years all governments have socialized costs and privatized profits for the benefit of a small percentage of humanity. It's time to privatize many of the costs and start socializing most of the profits for the majority of humanity.

Oh please. You're now Archie Bunker. You're doing the very thing to which you object. You're waxing nostalgic in order to support your point.
The GI Bill which allowed veterans to obtain mortgages at lower rates. The program is no one the overstuffed and inefficient welfare programs which burn up nearly half their budgets in administrative costs.
Who said government schools are superior? Beg to differ. Private and now Charter schools produce better students, graduate at a higher percentage and send a far higher percentage of those graduates to college.
The reasons why public schools exist is because of teacher's unions, the ability of local authorities to levy taxes for whatever purpose they see fit and because of a perception that private schools are enclaves for the wealthiest kids.
Every year taxpayers pour hundreds of billions of dollars into public school systems. Some are successful most are not. Many inner city school systems and many in rural areas are terrible. All that aside the one aspect that comes about when government officials are challenged with questions regarding failing schools....money. And what has government done every single time? They have increased taxes. They have this idiotic belief that one can solve a problem by throwing money at it. With public schools, that has NEVER worked.
I'm going to save you a lot of typing. Please stop using other people's material and posting it here. All this stuff of "common dreams" and "public good"...this is all scary socialist/communist stuff that you are getting form far left radical blogs.
Stop posting that shit here.
If a socialist utopia is your vision for the US, then say so. Stop hiding behind these people from which you get your opinions. Be a man and say what you want.

What does corporate education teach its students about the US War Racket?

History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890

Private school don't always educate.
They train students to perform well on standardized tests.
Which turns the students into useful cogs in the corporate state.

If you seriously doubt the fact that all governments exist to socialize costs while privatizing profit, you need to worry less about my manhood and start improving your mind.

 

[georgephillip]

I am a free market liberal who believes in externalities (i.e. one of the strongest arguments for government intervention).

I find myself on the outside of mainstream politics happening in D.C. I am not being represented.

I don't think it's in the political interests of elected Democrats OR Republicans to represent your interests. The only solution that occurs to me is attempting to convince millions of US voters, including those who normally don't bother casting a ballot, to vote AGAINST both major parties' incumbents starting in November 2012.

 

[Antiderivative]

I am a free market liberal who believes in externalities (i.e. one of the strongest arguments for government intervention).

I find myself on the outside of mainstream politics happening in D.C. I am not being represented.

I don't think it's in the political interests of elected Democrats OR Republicans to represent your interests.

lol...of course its not.

The only solution that occurs to me is attempting to convince millions of US voters, including those who normally don't bother casting a ballot, to vote AGAINST both major parties' incumbents starting in November 2012.

I have been doing that for the pat three elections and it doesn't work.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I can't help wondering what would happen if the US started filling its prisons with the richest 1% of its population?

How would Wall Street react if the first conviction for securities or control fraud resulted in 25 to life, i.e., meaning convicts would serve 25 years BEFORE their first parole hearing?

Many (most?) of those :men without principles" were born believing they are above man's laws.

They need to be disabused of that notion for this country to become free.

Great Gaea, you're eaten alive with envy.

Envious! Why on earth would anyone want to be one of those sleaze balls? Never having or getting enough of this material world isn't a position to be envied. Nor is anyone who willingly compromises principle or trust in order to gain wealth and/or position. No matter how long they live or how much wealth and property they accumulate, it will never be enough to keep them happy or satisfied for very long.

Needy greed isn't appealing to anyone other than another needy greedy individual.

Hmm. Do you know anyone who is actually wealthy? If so , are you familiar by which the person(s) accumulated their wealth?
Or is your view of wealthy simply a perception derived from greed and envy?
You libs claim to be about tolerance and eschew generalizations. On the contrary, you people are quick to negatively judge anyone that does not fit into one of you Politically correct protected classes. In four words, this can be summed up....You're full of shit

 

[Antiderivative]

Great Gaea, you're eaten alive with envy.

Envious! Why on earth would anyone want to be one of those sleaze balls? Never having or getting enough of this material world isn't a position to be envied. Nor is anyone who willingly compromises principle or trust in order to gain wealth and/or position. No matter how long they live or how much wealth and property they accumulate, it will never be enough to keep them happy or satisfied for very long.

Needy greed isn't appealing to anyone other than another needy greedy individual.

Hmm. Do you know anyone who is actually wealthy? If so , are you familiar by which the person(s) accumulated their wealth?
Or is your view of wealthy simply a perception derived from greed and envy?
You libs claim to be about tolerance and eschew generalizations. On the contrary, you people are quick to negatively judge anyone that does not fit into one of you Politically correct protected classes. In four words, this can be summed up....You're full of shit

lmao...wealth is perpetuated and protected by many government policies, yet hard reich sleaze bags think that is good for America, all while falsely preaching free market ideologies.