Beware of Hatriots
Very descriptive term. That’s what this article calls them.
Bill Clinton gave a speech yesterday on the Oklahoma City bombing. The fifteenth anniversary will be the day after tomorrow. (Here’s another link to Clinton’s speech.)
Clinton said:
“One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have…I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled.”
For a perfect example of power without responsibility, take John Boehner (please!). On the news the other night, he was giving a speech about all the recent threats and violence. He went on and on and on about how “the American people” are furious about Obamacare and “big government,” and then he finally got around to saying “well, I mean, ahem, of course we don’t condone that sort of thing, but…”
Clinton also fired back (figuratively) at Michele Bachmann for her constant references to “gangster government.”
“They are not gangsters. They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”
He specifically mentioned the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters in his speech.
“Ninety-nine percent of them will never do anything they shouldn’t do, but there are people who advocate violence and anticipate violence.”
He also pointed out the obvious — or at least it should be — differences between the original Tea Party and its current namesake:
“It was about no taxation without representation. It was not about representation by people you didn’t vote for and didn’t agree with, but can vote out in the next election.”
Labels: Bill Clinton, gangster government, Hatriots, John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, Oath Keepers, Oklahoma City, Three Percenters
posted by Tom Harper @ 11:49 AM
35 Comments:
Tom
Is it me or does it seem Obama has been left to dangle in the breeze. As well as he does, how can he combat the plethora of lies and accusations. Let's face it he's outnumbered. It seems to me when a Democrat speaks out on the talk shows for example, they barely can speak. Example,Arlen Specter. He goes on Fox and is just eaten up. I bring this up because Clinton did a hell of a job explaining what's up.
It takes a former President to help Obama. I dunno......
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/mother_jones_expos_fbi_knew_in_advance_about_oklahoma_ci.htm
It has finally begun to seep even into the MSM that these people are tied pretty tightly into Christian Identity. Why, there are even "reporters" now speculating that, oh, this might be about RACE instead of COMMANISM!
I don't expect to hear the truth very often, though. Not from the media we have, who are trying like hell to reset the calendar to 1859.
Despite the statements of such a reknowned statesman as our former President Clinton to the contrary, the true difference isn't that we don't technically have representation without taxation any more, rather the fact is that our elected representation is routinely ignoring both the will of the people and the Constitution while placing extraordinary taxation on the people.
Frankly, I'd rather be subjected to no representation instead of contrary representation.
The American people were overwhelmingly against the stimulus spending, Obamacare, and the future vote on cap & tax legislation.
Our "representatives" don't care what we think and are choosing to vote for what they want instead.
THAT is the huge and egregious difference between the original Tea Party uprising against the enemy of British tyranny in the late 18th century and now the legislative malfeasance of our own federal government today.
The talk show nuts took it one step further when G. Gordon Liddy referred to federal agents (of which he was one) as "jack booted thugs" and described on air how to kill one getting past the bulletproof vest.
Let us also remember there is still a McVeigh co-conspirator still un-captured.
Erik
Tom,
Understanding the right wing mentality is easy. All you have to do is suspend all logic and reason.
As an instance, people who criticized President Bush for illegally invading Iraq, spending trillions of dollars and killing millions of people, including women and children who had nothing to do with 9/11 were traitors.
But those people who talk about the violent overthrow of a democratically elected president because he passes legislation that you don't agree with are patriots, enabled by the right wing noise machine of hate radio.
when you have a political party that is dedicated to lying and they have a media outlet to give them credibility - it is hard to continuously fight the battle on gentlemanly terms - as obama is doing
we all talk about the Goebbels' the Big Lie --- but its practice has never been so apparent as it is in 2010 USA - just listen to Palin - NOTHING she says is true, but not one person outside of the Cable Entertainment NEws orgs will say a thing
Oh, here we go with "obamacare" again...and all I hear after that is blabbity blabbity yadda yadda blah blah blah.
These days, right wing = losers, liars and lowlifes. Seriously, what else would resurrect Newt Gingrich or G Gordon Liddy? If there are any moderates left in that party, they better start taking back control, because it's quickly going the way of the Whigs.
Tim: I hardly ever watch the "political" channels, Fox or MSNBC, so I haven't seen this kind of thing myself, but I've heard about it. S.W. Anderson (who comments here and has an excellent blog of his own) has mentioned this sort of thing. Either a liberal (meaning somebody to the left of Mussolini) gets trashed, or a conservative gets all bollixed up and can't spin his way out of something he just said, and they quickly break for a commercial. When the commercial is over, they're talking about a whole new subject and the tongue-tied conservative is off the hook.
Dr. Kiss Injure: I couldn't get the link to work, but judging by the title, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
JR: It's so odd when that happens. Sometimes I'll see a story on Yahoo or MSNBC that I'd just seen at Think Progress or Raw Story. It's always so startling, like "damn, they're actually reporting real news for a change, what's the catch?"
T: I also don't like the fact that the will of the people is ignored by "elected" representatives. Corporate bribery has hijacked the whole process.
"The American people were overwhelmingly against the stimulus spending, Obamacare, and the future vote on cap & tax legislation." Tisk tisk, I'm surprised at you Mr. Paine. I've come to expect better of you than just reciting something Sean Hannity might have spewed out.
I don't claim to know what "the American people" want, since polls are all over the map. But in two of your 3 examples, the American people just happen to want the exact same thing that corporate lobbyists have spent quatrabazillions of dollars campaigning for. Coincidence?
About the stimulus, I'm sure you've seen some of the hundreds of newscasts and articles about legislators who screamed against the stimulus package, called it "too much government," etc. And after it passed, these exact same legislators were photographed at local ribbon-cutting ceremonies, breaking ground for a new project that was MADE POSSIBLE by that hated stimulus, and beaming about all the local jobs that were being created by this project.
Erik: I remember that Gordon Liddy speech. If he had said that during Dumbya's presidency, he would have been sent to Gitmo.
Lew: You nailed it. As of the exact moment that Obama was inaugurated, it became patriotic to hate the president and pray for his overthrow.
DCap: They sure are making maximum use of the Big Lie technique. Goebbels is smiling from his grave. Even their supposed gaffes -- like Giuliani saying there was no terrorist attack during GW Bush's presidency -- have a method. That comment was made in front of millions of TV viewers and probably seeped into the consciousness of some of the less evolved members of society, of which there are plenty.
Bee: LOL. If there's ever a nostalgia craze for 2010, people shouting "Obamacare" will be front and center. It'll be the 2010 trademark, along with all those "grass roots" anti-HCR demonstrations that materialized every time an HMO lobbyist snapped his fingers.
Tom, See? I'm sure you had a great comment to build on what I said, but after I saw the word Obamacare, it was all blabbity blabbity yadda yadda blah blah blah...
:)
Seriously, though, do you ever wonder if, in 25 years or so, people will look back at this year and think "what a balls up mess those teabaggers really were?"
I would certainly take serious issue with T. Paine and anyone else who says that "the American people were overwhelmingly against" the Obama agenda. That is, plain and simple, a lie. The REPUBLICANS were (and are) against the Obama agenda. And of course a lot of it is plain racism. Not that we would be able to say that, oh my no, but don't be fooled.
The Republicans need to understand that they LOST, and quite overwhelmingly. It's a Democratic agenda now, and more than overdue. So DEAL WITH IT. Let the man WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED do his job.
Clinton did a great job with that talk, telling facts and making good sense. Unfortunately, the people who most need to hear it and take it to heart are the very ones who will react with sarcasm about the Lewinsky nonsense or something equally foolish.
T. Paine wrote: ". . . our elected representation is routinely ignoring both the will of the people and the Constitution. . ."
I sure got a six year overdose of that from 2001-2006. Even now, writing to my lockstep-marching Republican drone of a congresswoman is a complete waste of time. If I want GOP talking points, I can always go to Fox Noise or CNN.
Paine, over the past three decades I had to tell myself many times, "This too shall pass." I suggest those on the right lack faith in democracy and the self-discipline required to act like adults instead of playground bullies who aren't getting their way. Tea Partiers and the rest of the conservative right act like they're the first Americans who ever had to weather a president they feel is wrong about everything and/or unworthy of the office.
How ironic this is, after these same right wingers gave us -- and mindlessly supported -- the certfiably worst president in U.S. history, as opposed to our current president, who has an exceptional intellect, a superb education and who goes out of his way to listen to opposing views and let the democratic process work.
Disagree with Obama's politics and policies all you want. That's fair and reasonable. Just quit making him out to be an ever-growing catalog of things he isn't. Quit attributing evil intentions to everything the man says and does. Quit acting like spoiled, badly raised kids, sore losers and playground bullies. Start working with truth, facts and reality, even when some of those don't fit your ideological needs and preferences. That shouldn't be too much to ask after what your politicians have done to our country and the American people.
T. Paine wrote: "The American people were overwhelmingly against the stimulus spending, Obamacare, and the future vote on cap & tax legislation."
People started getting cold feet on stimulus spending a few months ago, after nearly a year of right-wing noisemaking. People are overwhelmingly against letting the bottom fall out of the economy. Republicans should be too. That's what Hoover did, and the people were so grateful, they didn't elect another Republican president for 20 years.
The American people were and are overwhelmingly in favor of reforming our health care system. Arriving at a final plan took over a year -- ample time for Republicans to lie about it, sucking in the gullible. Don't kid yourself, a majority of Americans still want and intend to have health care reform.
As for cap-and-trade on energy, most Americans have little understanding of it. Republicans are trying to help them by lying about it, too. We'll just have to see how much credibility the people will afford Republican politicians who, by all but the most perverse logic, deserve none because they've lied to the people so much about so many things before.
They say whatever they want, laugh off the possibility of violence, and turn their backs when they find out someone is actually listening. It would have been excusable if any of them believed anything they said.
First, let me say that I don't consider Obama to be an evil man. I simply think that he is a true believer in his ideology and wants to "transform" America into just another European-type socialist democracy. I find that to be scary and something to be resisted by all legal means possible.
I further understand that he won the election and is rightfully president and accordingly has the right to try and enact his agenda.
My beef comes in the fact that, unlike most of those people that errantly voted for the man, I understood that President Obama was a radical that campaigned as a slightly left of center candidate, when in actuallity he is a radical leftist with strong Marxist tendencies. He was NOT what he portrayed himself to be in the campaign.
Further, I don't say "Marxist" as a pejoritave, but rather as a descriptive word of the facts of his policies that he has or wants to enact.
If one actually took the time to look at his history (he had the most liberal voting record in his very short senatorial career) to his days of radicalism as a community organizer, to some of the extreme associates and friends of his past, then what we currently see of him is not a surprise.
I am absolutely for health care reform. What Obama and the Democrats have done does NOT address the problems though. In fact, if any of you would look objectively at the facts, you would realize that this current un-constitutional law will only serve to eventually raise premiums, discourage new doctors from entering practice, cause rationing of care accordingly, and ultimately result in a government-run single payer system. THAT is not the way to fix the problems.
I, and I know for certainty, that all but perhaps a infintessimaly small minority of Tea Partiers will obey the law and work within its confines to repeal the worst extremes of this administration and congress as soon as possible.
The fact that most credible polls show that indeed most Americans are against the current health care bill, cap & tax, and the stimulus wreck should be a wake up call for all of my friends on the left that will scream bloody murder when the ship of state is partially righted come this November and then hopefully put back on a constitutional course for the first time since Reagan was president when November 2012 comes around.
Funny how the left proclaimed it was patriotic to criticize one's government when the foolish Bush was president, but now it is hate speech when Obama is president.
Ah yes! That pesky little thing called Freedom Of Assembly has all the Lefties in a tizzy. You would have thought those crazy Tea Partiers were overturning cars, lobbing bombs, and burning buildings!
They've even trotted-out that racist, former Pres. Clinton.
I would have thought they'd keep the 'BIG-GUY' in the bullpen and have him fresh for the later innings. But no, they brought him out in the 4rth!
I was planning to just sit back and enjoy the slugfest. But:
"I am absolutely for health care reform. What Obama and the Democrats have done does NOT address the problems though."
Republicans had roughly 12 years to come up with something -- anything! -- to address the health care crisis. (That's from the time they squelched Clinton's health care proposals until the 2006 election.) What did they come up with? That's right, nothing. Zero. Nada.
And now they're all wailing "but what about OUR ideas?" They're absolutely pathetic.
I agree this health care reform bill sucks. Be we had to start somewhere, and with our corrupt corporate-controlled coin-operated government, apparently the only way to get something done is to write a jillion-page bill that nobody's read, gives away billions to the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies, and puts citizens in a straitjacket by requiring them to purchase health insurance.
And as you know, the individual mandate to buy health insurance is a Republican idea. They only scream "limited government" when a large corporation has to obey a law. There's never a peep out of them when individuals are crushed under Big Brother's thumb.
Anyway, requiring everyone to buy health insurance was a Republican alternative to Bill Clinton's health care proposals in the early '90s. And it's the basis of Massachusetts' health care law, which Governor Romney signed in 2006.
T.Paine has hit the nail on the head.
Tom Wrote:
"Republicans had roughly 12 years to come up with something -- anything! -- to address the health care crisis. (That's from the time they squelched Clinton's health care proposals until the 2006 election.) What did they come up with? That's right, nothing. Zero. Nada."
Actually they DID the Bush medicare plan which turned out to be corporate welfare for the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Companies by letting them dip their greedy hands in the Medicare (tax funded) coffers. It limits your choices of Doctors (the same thing people fear under the Obama plan) and created the "Donut Hole" drug plan for Seniors (which Obama reduced if not eliminated). The Congressional Budget Office predicted huge deficient with it (they turned out to be right,) as it it wasn't tied to any budget (in other words comes straight from the national credit card)yet the "fiscally conservative" Republicans rammed it through - so far in these postings not One Conservatives will acknowledge it or discuss it WHY? it is because you like it? Or just want to Blame Obama?
Republicans also screamed Obama care wasn't doing enough to enforce Medicare fraud and they should be careful what they wish for as you normally picture those false storefronts you always see on TV billing Medicare for stuff not done, but the REAL defrauders are the big Insurance Companies, The Senior Advocacy Groups I talk to are filing multiple complaints against the Major Insurance companies violating the Medicare rules (denying coverage that's clearly covered) and over charging Medicare (ie the Government). Sounds like fraud to me.
This is what the Conservatives considered reform, this was their one chance to do something about it, and I wish they would own up to it.
Erik
Time Machine Moment in reading about LBJ when Medicare came up, he was going through the same right wing opposition that Obama did (though not on the same scale -we had no Fox news or Rush Limbaugh back then), He said "Let them scream, in few years they all act like it was their idea and will forget what they were screaming for in the first place"
Turns out they were right!
Erik
Erik is right. The Republicans were stupid and what ideas they had back when they were in power was to increase the governmental spending on health care entitlement programs rather than fix the problems... JUST LIKE NOW, albeit to a much lesser degree.
It was such reckless and fool-hardy spending that finally made me officially leave the Republican party.
Hell, I find it interesting that the left hates Bush so much. A generation back he would have been considered more liberal than JFK.
Bush spent tons of money to expand government along with the assistance of asinine Republicans in congress, created new entitlements, and he expanded or created new federal departments. JFK was at least more fiscally conservative.
Bush frankly should have had a (D) beside his name, because he sure didn't govern like any Republican I would call worthy of the title.
One of the few exceptions to Bush's foolishness was that he at least was pro-America, democracy, freedom, and protecting our nation.
If only our current president could claim the same thing.
Lastly, just because the Republicans were idiots and didn't do the right thing hardly justifies the Democrats from doubling down in their idiocy on the same issues.
The fact that both parties by and large are so out of touch is precisely what has given birth to the whole Tea Party movement. We The People are sick of it and intend to make our politicians listen to their bosses; US!
Why so many on the left think that holding our politicians responsible is a bad thing boggles my mind.
Paine, I don't have a problem with people criticizing government, although I afford more credibility to those who make informed critiques that are specific and include facts, not just so much gratuitious, generalized bashing.
"I simply think that (Obama) is a true believer in his ideology and wants to 'transform' America into just another European-type socialist democracy."
Watch and listen to the man himself, and to the people he calls on for advice — instead of Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Washington Times and all the rest. Use your eyes, ears and common sense.
Obama is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. To say he's a Marxist makes you sound ignorant not only of Obama but of Marxism. If it so happens some of the things Obama wants to do resemble what's been done in Europe, there's no European envy to it, any more than there's ideology behind it.
Check out surveys of Europeans. Generally, they are happier, feel more secure and confident than Americans. The fact they've made accommodations to provide levels of income/job security, higher education or occupational training and health care for all, plus more and better vacation time, family leaves and such, are big parts of why Europeans are generally happier. Looking over there at what works, and how, and why, isn't Marxist ideology, it's common sense.
By 1960 standards, Obama would be a middle-of-the-road, moderate Democrat, one willing to go along to a certain extent with more-liberal policy makers if it looks as though what they want to do would be helpful and workable.
The fact is that Obama is not way off to the left, it's that the political midline has moved so far to the right it looks that way to people who either weren't aware of the political landscape of 50 years ago or who have failed to appreciate the changes that, too often for the worse, have taken place since.
Paine said
"Erik is right. The Republicans were stupid and what ideas they had back when they were in power was to increase the governmental spending on health care entitlement programs rather than fix the problems... JUST LIKE NOW, albeit to a much lesser degree."
Not quite, whereas the Republican plan was to line the corporate coffers. The goal of the Democrat plan was to invest in the people by making a healthy society which could therefore become a more productive society- the model for which was the New Deal- the Ultimate “Socialist” program which built the American Middle Class and made our society the highest standard of living in the world, as well as making us the most productive. Which eventually wiped out the deficients and the effects of the depression and WW2,, and had Eisenhower sitting pretty during his administration. Shamefully with too much dealing, interference and compromise has made this bill far way short of its goals, and it may take many more years before it could be corrected.
"Bush spent tons of money to expand government along with the assistance of asinine Republicans in congress, created new entitlements, and he expanded or created new federal departments. JFK was at least more fiscally conservative.
Bush frankly should have had a (D) beside his name, because he sure didn't govern like any Republican I would call worthy of the title."
Oh really? What is the difference between him and Ronald Reagan? They both built up huge deficient’s, greatly expanded the size of Government, both pushed for deregulation of the financial markets and gave big tax breaks for the rich and both had shitty civil rights records. Sounds like Republicans to me (Oh yeah Reagan raised taxes on us regular folks a couple times). If Bush had Reagan’s charm, he would be just as beatified as Reagan. I really get tired of placing Reagan as the true example of a Republican and a Conservative when his legacy was so contrary, but you guys put him on a pedestal anyway.
Enlighten me, who is the true Republican?
Erik
Erik, good response.
Paine wrote, "Bush frankly should have had a (D) beside his name . . ."
Don't you dare! Don't you try to make out that George W. Bush was anything like any Democrat, any liberal, any progressive — anyone who knows his ass from his elbow — ever.
Bush is in a direct line with Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge (Bush's idol) and Herbert Hoover, although a pretty good case can be made that Bush eclipsed his political and ideological forebears when it comes to industrial-strength incompetence and dim-witted arrogance.
I don't want to hear about spending, either. The inverse of wanton free spending is wanton, irresponsible tax cutting without having the cojones to cut programs (expenses) so the tax cuts don't just add to the deficit. And, that's on top of stupidly squandering the Clinton surplus.
A century from now, when people discuss presidents and sheer stupidity, George W. Bush will be at a level all his own. Or at least I hope and pray he will. One more president like him, and this country might just come undone.
Have I ever mentioned how much I LOVE it when SW gets his dander up? :)
Seriously, comparing JFK and George W. Bush is like comparing elephants to moon rocks. After I see that, the rest is blabbity blabbity blah blah blah...
I am amused that I am challenged as having biased sources for my information and by implication "lack common sense", when it would seem that charge is more fittingly applied to those making it.
For the record, yes I do listen to talk radio and Fox News. I also listen to PMS-NBC, National Politburo Radio (NPR), CNN, and subscribe to the provincial mouth-piece of the state-run media known as the New York Times. Oh, and I also like to keep abreast of liberal thoughts via left-wing blogs.
So you can see that it is not I that am in the echo chamber of only those thoughts and ideas that I agree with. Anderson, have you ever listened to Fox News or an hour of Mr. Limbaugh's show, or do you choose to just regurgitate what is said in Mother Jones, Keith Olberman, or the Daily Kos website, sir?
To your points, Obama is hardly a pragmatist. He will temper his idealism when absolutly necessary to implement his leftist agenda incrementally. (I give you his statements about "passing health care now and we will fix it later" as an example.) Obama is patient and smart in the fact that he knows that once an entitlement program is created, no matter how imperfect, it becomes very difficult to repeal it. It can be massaged though to become more in line with his Marxist ideology.
And what indeed would you call it when a President takes over private companies such as GM, Chrysler, and myriads of banks etc against their will in many cases and basically makes them government run entities? Obama has seen fit to dictate what executives can be paid and what products they can produce (as per the type of cars that GM is now supposed to be making).
Nowhere in the Constitution does the goverment have the right to take over huge corporation and nationalize them. This is something usually seen in banana republic dictatorships such as Venezuela under Hugo Chavez.
When the thought is to redistribute wealth, as Obama in a candid moment admitted to Joe the plumber, from the rich to the poor, each according to their needs, well that is called Marxism, my friend.
Further, I had to chuckle at your characterization of Obama as would have been a 1960's middle of the road Democrat. Hell, even McGovern would have said to Obama, "Damn! You are way to the left, son!"
Erik, you have bought into the conventional revisionist history of FDR and his New Deal socialism. If you were to research it thoroughly from objective sources, you would find that the left-wing version of history does not hold water.
Despite HUGE amounts of fiscal largese in the form of government spending, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was pretty much the same all the way up to the start of WWII.
Further, interest rates and inflation were also not improved despite such irrational expenditures. FDR's policies only served to prolong the depression. He hardly was responsible for creating the middle class as you incorrectly claim. That is hard to do when unemployment rates were flat at best during the enactment of his New Deal policies.
Further, did you know that there was the beginning of a very bad recession in 1920 and 1921? It is called the forgotten depression and because of the stewardship of the unjustly maligned President Harding, it was quickly overcome and the economic recovery he created ushered in the roaring 20's.
Harding did it by NOT using Keynsian economic theory and doing all of the wrong things that Hoover, FDR, and now Obama are doing today.
Unemployment jumped from 4 to 12% (worse than the national average now) and the GNP fell 17%. Instead of priming the pump by printing money and spending tax dollars on some asinine stimulus package, Harding cut the federal budget in HALF! He further cut taxes across the board. Lastly, he made sure the Federal Reserve did not start printing additional money. The result was a 2.4% unemployment rate by 1923.
The reason the left doesn't want this known is because it is contrary to everything they believe in, never mind the fact that it worked.
Far better to use Saul Alinsky tactics to ridicule and demonize one's opponent, Harding in this case, so that his brilliance in minimizing what had the makings for a first Great Depression never are held up for a model of how to handle such situations today.
When the government "creates jobs" through fiscal expenditure, it is only doing so artificially. Typically when the tax payer funding of those jobs is cut, so is the job.
Far better, like Reagan, to cut taxes for everyone, (yes even the rich) so that people can invest in themselves and thereby reinvigorate the economy.
If the rich are taxed at 70% they will find ways to shelter their money. If rates are cut so that they keep more of their money, they will find ways to make it grow by investing in their companies, R&D, etc thereby creating new jobs. Those new jobs have people that will now stop collecting government checks and instead be paying taxes.
This is how Harding and Reagan managed to pull us out of horrible recessions. Further, I have yet to this day ever been offered a job by a poor man.
Yes, Reagan should have cut spending too. I remember him getting budget bills from congress and decrying the spending within. Reagan's spending was to rebuild the military after the Viet Nam era and the neglect from the Carter presidency.
His constitutionally authorized spending on national defense broke the back of the Soviets and helped us win the Cold War. Gorbachev even acknowledged this. Had Reagan had a line item veto, he would have cut the ridiculous spending put into the bills by Tip O'Neil's Democractic congress.
For every additional dollar that Reagan's tax cuts brought in revenue, congress spent $1.50. That is the legacy of the Democrats and not Reagan.
Beekeeper's Apprentice (and friends for that matter), it seems that you hear a lot of blabbity blabbity blah blah blah...
If I may be so bold, perhaps you should try and LISTEN to an opposing viewpoint occasionally.
You might be surprised and learn something. :)
Again, if you ONLY choose sources of information that validate your point of view, how are you going to react when facts and history prove that you were wrong?
Putting yourself in an echo chamber of sycophants (as does Obama and most other politicians) is foolish and dangerous. Far better to have someone of great intellect challenge your world view and see if it withstands scrutiny. Then you will be more apt to know that you are likely correct in your opinions, or you can adapt those opinions with the new information you have gleaned.
It might serve you well to occasionally watch Fox News, or pick up the Washington Times or Weekly Standard. Listen to Rush or Glen Beck for a hour every once in awhile. Check out blogs with a conservative bent to them on occasion. At the very least it will give you some perspective and an idea of what your political "enemies" are thinking.
Just my thoughts on it, anyway...
Paine
“He hardly was responsible for creating the middle class as you incorrectly claim”
You forget to look at the Demographics before and after the war. Before there was a largely uneducated labor class, the professional class was mostly by heredity and a college education was a privilege for the few. Millions of Soldiers returned home from the War were eligible for a cheap education thanks to the GI bill (New Deal). New colleges had to be quickly added to handle them (The conservatives of the day complained we were filling the colleges with the undeserving) When they graduated we had a new class of professionals, Doctors and Lawyers who were not Sons of Doctors and Lawyers, or when Industry expanded, Detroit made cars instead of Tanks, GE made refrigerators instead of engines etc., (when I was in college most of my professors were War Vets who grew up lower class and wouldn’t have gotten the opportunity if it weren’t for the GI Bill) they could become middle then senior managers. Didn’t happen before the War, Of course not all of them went to college but those who went to the manufacturing jobs, found more income due to the minimum wage and the 40 hour work week (New Deal) better rights or organize and more job protections (New Deal). If they invested their money, they could have some assurance that somebody was keeping an eye on those who handle it, so that could no longer make big commissions on Insider trading (SEC-New Deal). Just look at the growth of towns, housing, and consumer goods after that period. This created something else that was an American Idea – the Leisure, and Entertainment Industry. Places for People to spent their new disposable income that they now had time to enjoy (40 hour week – New Deal). At this point you might be twisting in your seat as many Conservatives acted like this was the end of Civilization. They screamed, denounced and then ENJOYED all the benefits of those New Deal – even Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole admitted they are where they are because of the New Deal (of course now they hate it)
“When the government "creates jobs" through fiscal expenditure, it is only doing so artificially.”
That was a great deal of Reaganomics, pumping a huge amount of money into defense. In my state of California the Northern part of the State which is more tech (Silicon Valley) never did as well as the Southern Half which relays heavily on defense industries. This trend almost reversed when Clinton became president. Not to mention wasteful spending and insisting the Navy take the revised Battleships, which were already judged obsolete due to missiles.
“If the rich are taxed at 70% they will find ways to shelter their money”
Yes that magic 70% figure, McCain tried to use it on Obama during the debates, Obama countered with a report released by the Commerce department just that morning, but was saying just what Commerce, Treasury and Economist have been saying for years: First of all very few actually pay that 70%, they either get away underpaying to paying nothing by other shelters and loopholes supplied by the US government (Claiming a Corporate Headquarters in the Cayman Islands to avoid Taxes), or downright defiance (just not paying). Give them another tax break there is nothing to stop them from sheltering it elsewhere and making more money, there is NO guarantee they will convert to more jobs, unless you tell them to – which has never happened. Factor in also what breaks they might be getting from the State and the locals, and since many of our corporations are foreign owned, that break may go back to their own countries.
“His constitutionally authorized spending on national defense broke the back of the Soviets and helped us win the Cold War. Gorbachev even acknowledged this.”
Soviet Analyst also say that the Carter Wheat embargo would have done it too, if left alone (Canceled by Reagan)
Erik
T. Paine, you really should get over the "haughty little self" meme you've got rolling there, especially after...was it Green Eagle? Yes, I think it was, Green Eagle, at Truth101's site, who struck your nerve and all you could reply with was "f-off!"
For what it's worth, I occasionally watch Fox News, listen to Rush & Beck, I even go check out what Matt Drudge is dribbling occasionally and once I read the first chapter of an Ann Coulter book, until I decided that my masochistic streak just wasn't quite that strong. It's basically the same thing over and over again. Not unlike your comments, it's mostly obamacare! socialism! communism!.
So, given the source material, after obamacare! and american hating liberals! all I see is...yep, you guessed correctly, blabbity blabbity blah blah blah.
I seriously doubt you've read a Zinn history, or Chomsky, and I wonder when the last time you watched "Democracy Now" was.
I do have to give you an "A" for effort, if an "F" for sense of history, because I've yet to see a conservative try to compare George Bush to John Kennedy. I'll give you that one for laugh factor alone. I could be mistaken, though, I admit I haven't listened to Rush in awhile, so it is possible he said something along those lines yesterday and I just missed it.
And, at the end of the day, we're just boosting Tom Harper's comment count, so keep on blabbity blabbityin', darlin' :)
T. Paine wrote: "Obama is patient and smart in the fact that he knows that once an entitlement program is created, no matter how imperfect, it becomes very difficult to repeal it."
Thanks for overstating the obvious, as if it's some kind of devious plot. In fact, the thinking in the administration and the left is that it's better to have a starter program to improve than to start from scratch, especially in the wake of two failed efforts. So yes, a lot of good people who were less than thrilled with some features of health care reform sighed and signed on. And yes, some, like myself, called for Democrats to get one with it, to speed up the pace, precisely so Republicans couldn't come along and repeal it.
"And what indeed would you call it when a President takes over private companies such as GM, Chrysler . . ."
Salvation, and not just for Chrysler and GM.
Do you realize GM has already managed to turn a profit and projects it will be able to repay the government, with interestt, ahead of time?
And, do you realize when GM has done that, a whole lot of workers who didn't lose their jobs, along with a whole lot of auto manufacturing-related businesses that didn't go under, along with their employees, have Uncle Sam to thank for not being left to go under, adding to the economy's downward spiral? Finally, Paine, do you get it that letting the automakers fail would've been a blow to the nation's pride at any time, but would have been horrendous for morale and economically calamitous in the depths of the worst recession in 80 years?
". . .and myriads of banks etc against their will in many cases and basically makes them government run entities?"
In fact, the government hasn't nationalized any banks. It bailed a bunch of big banks — ones complicit in creating the economic meltdown in the first place. And as their thanks to the American people, hurt horrendously by the collapse those banksters helped create, the selfish bastards in charge of the banks, instead of freeing up credit for businesses and consumers, chose to use their outrageous ill-gotten gains on mergers, acquisitions and fat bonuses for their CEO's and executives.
If I was president, I would nationalize the nations 10 or 12 biggest banks, oust their trustees and top layer of management, and run them for several years as public/private entities operating in the public interest. During those years, I wouldn't rest until gonzo new regulations were enacted, and regulators as smart as hell and mean as junkyard dogs were put in place to conduct proper oversight of them when they were finally set free. That way, we might get another 40 or 50 years without another greed-powered economic collapse. (continues)
"Nowhere in the Constitution does the goverment have the right to take over huge corporation and nationalize them. This is something usually seen in banana republic dictatorships such as Venezuela under Hugo Chavez."
Nowhere in the Constitution is there provision for much of what the perversely named Patriot Act supposedly authorizes. Little things like dispensing with habeas corpus, denying people privacy in their persons, papers and effects, giving the president the power to declare people, American citizens included, enemies who must be imprisoned, on his say so, for as long as he sees fit to keep them in prison. When we get those daggers out of the heart of American democracy we can talk about the fine points of saving some businesses as part of a larger effort to save the economy and ease the damage done to hundreds of millions of Americans.
"When the thought is to redistribute wealth, as Obama in a candid moment admitted to Joe the plumber, from the rich to the poor, each according to their needs, well that is called Marxism, my friend."
And when spreading the wealth around means putting the fix in, so Big Oil profits go to the statosphere, as Bush and Cheney did in the first year of their reign of errer . . .? And when when spreading the wealth around means starting a war, sacrificing the lives of 4,000-plus of our military people, to ensure Big Oil gets a few more decades of ensured supply. . .? And when when spreading the wealth around means privatizing that war so the vice president's old firm, Halliburtion, in which he was still heavily invested, makes billions . . .? And when when spreading the wealth around means passing huge tax cuts, the overwhelming bulk of which went to the wealthiest 10 percent, driving up the deficit and national debt higher than all previous presidents combined . . .? When it's those things, Paine, what do you call it? Do you call it doctrinary Marxism? Were Bush, Cheney and that whole corrupt, devious, perverse, incompetent pack of jackals Marxists?
Because, Paine, what we witnessed during the Bush years was a wholesale redistribution of wealth, from those least able to afford to be taken from to those least deserving of being given to. Next to that, Obama's redistributive efforts so far have been infinitesimal.
As for my news habits, I tend to regularly follow sources that have credibility. That leaves Fox Noise, Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk out.
Wow, I am growing tired so I will respond on this posting one final time.
Erik, you make some valid points regarding the New Deal; however, the bottome line is that overall the New Deal did not help unemployment, inflation, or interest rates but only served to prolong the recession for years longer than it would have without FDR's intervention, sir.
Beekeeper, first, I have no idea what Green Eagle etc is. If someone using the moniker of T. Paine was unable to respond with something more intelligent than "F-off" there, I can assure you it was not me! Regardless, I have never heard of the site to which you are referring.
And I applaud you for your diversity of news sources, despite being confounded at your seeming lack of open-mindedness to any of those sources that don't fit your preconceived agenda.
Anderson, where Chrysler and GM were ultimately done in by extravagant union contracts that made their companies uncompetitive and various other mismanagement issues, the bank bail-outs, including non-banks such as the huge Obama contributor of Goldman Sachs were unconscionable. (By the way, how come the left correctly excoriated Bush for the Enron contributions to him, and then says nary a peep when Goldman Sachs corruptly gives ten times as much to the Obama administration?)
The bottom line is that if you do not let companies, even those that are "too big to fail" actually have to go through bankruptcy, there is no incentive for them to manage their companies wisely.
The executives can take foolish risks, cut corners, etc to make huge short term gains without fear of the future because they know that Uncle Sam will ultimately save them in the end.
As for the banks, this is also true.
You have idiot boys Chris Dodd and Barney Frank calling anyone (including McCain) a racist for wanting to regulate Fannie and Freddie from providing loans to people unqualified and unable to repay them, so you end up creating this housing catastrophe that spread across the country and the banks accordingly.
Obama comes in and tells banks that they will receive federal funding, even some banks that were solvent and did not WANT funding, so that they will loan that money out to further exacerbate the problem. Unfortunately the banks that were forced to take funding against their will had to repay that money with interest despite their never needing it to begin with. Hardly seems right to penalize those playing by the rules simply to help those that didn't, and yet that seems to be the Democrat way.
Anderson, while it might initially seem like a good idea to nationalize banks to set them right and restore consumer confidence, should you be the president to do so, what happens when your evil successor decides to use those now-nationalized banks to his own end?
He might decide that only people that contributed to his campaign, or engage only in "green" businesses are worthy of loans from the national banks. This is how dictatorships are formed, sir.
I don't want this, even under a benign dictator.
As for Cheney and Haliburton, by law he had and did divest himself of all stocks and any interest in the company prior to his taking office. Further, despite our disagreement on the need for the second Gulf War, I hardly see how this helped Bush etc financially or politically. Bush was a fool in many areas, but this was not one of them.
Lastly, the much-maligned tax cuts of which you speak, went to everyone. If they helped the richest people more (not by percentage cut either) it is because they are the ones that actually PAY most of the damned taxes.
The bottom 50% of wage earners in America pay no net federal taxes and often receive far more back in welfare payments. The top 5% of wage earners typically pay over 50%of the federal tax burden. See the excellent and non-partisan Taxfoundation.org for more on this.
Doesn't it strike you as fair to cut taxes to those that PAY the taxes, Mr. Anderson?
"The rich don't pay taxes. They don't. They have lawyers and accountants who find loopholes, you know." -- Said with a smirk by President George W. Bush, who in 2005, if memory serves me, had a net worth of $15 million to $17 million.
Post a Comment
<< Home