Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I Just Can't Believe It (My First DU Rant)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 03:54 AM
Original message
I Just Can't Believe It (My First DU Rant)
Edited on Sat Jan-05-08 04:06 AM by ihavenobias
I just skimmed another thread and saw a mention that Bush is considering another tax cut. It's a much smaller cut (designed, of course, to "stimulate the economy"), but a cut nonetheless.

I'm incredulous, although I guess I shouldn't be at this point.

Bush is the first president in our history to *cut* taxes during a time of war.

Conservatives like to say liberals "want something for nothing", but in reality, THEY are the ones who want an insanely expensive (in every sense of the word) war with no sacrifice whatsoever (well, other than buying a Support The Troops bumper sticker and not buying a Dixie Chicks CD).

More than 70% of the national debt has been created by 3 *Republican* presidents.

Ronald Reagan borrowed more money than all presidents before him COMBINED, and now George Bush has borrowed more than Reagan. According to Thom Hartmann (who I love BTW), we paid 1 billion dollars worth of interest in 2005 on Reagan's debt alone! That's INSANE.

Even if you believe Hartmann doubled the number (which I don't), how can the Republican party talk about fiscal responsibility in light of the ridiculous borrowing? And for that matter, can someone please explain why the Democrats (every single Democrat in Congress) isn't POUNDING a simplified version of this message into the heads of EVERY American, EVERY day, 7 days a week?

At the very least I want to hear this from our presidential candidates!

My God, is there a better way to undercut the party of so called fiscal responsibility than to point out (in clear, irrefutable terms) how they've put trillions of dollars on a National Credit card (you know what, they can even use that example) to be paid off by anyone *other* than the short sighted fools who fold on all other issues if it means they get an extra few hundred bucks in the form of tax cuts?

PS---They should also pound the fact that our tax dollars become more and more meaningless over time because a larger percentage of them go toward repaying debt on programs that may no longer benefit us (assuming they ever did). Finally, if I remember correctly, the biggest budget cut last year (or was it the year before?) was for federal student aid. Now why isn't THAT message being repeated over and over and over?

Give people a choice. You can have your $400 tax cut OR you can make sure your kids have some extra cash to push them through college.

Give people *tangible* examples, real examples. Enough vague generalities! It's not enough just to say "we'll help the middle class and poor". Tell people the true and ultimate cost of tax cuts in practical terms and the republicans will NEVER win another election on this BS platform!

http://bravenewfilms.org/election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 03:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. HELL YES! I totally agree.
I want to hear why Bush spent more than any other president in history and put it all on the credit card. WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED. How did this come to be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Here's how:
He led us into an illegal war, and has been spending like a drunken sailor ever since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Well, he has the drunken part nailed! Why won't our candidates say
what bu$hco ran around saying in 2000, that we were in a recession? It wasn't true then but it is certainly true now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. We were not in a recession then
and we are not in one now.

1.The act of withdrawing or going back.
2.An extended decline in general business activity, typically two consecutive quarters of falling real gross national product.
3.The withdrawal in a line or file of participants in a ceremony, especially clerics and choir members after a church service.
http://www.answers.com/topic/recession?cat=biz-fin





:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
31. They needed no guns
to rob and destroy our country since it was an inside job. Attack us and cause fear was used to do it. Jefferson said democracy can only be destroyed from within.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Naturyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
2. They are just selfish and hypocritical fools.
"Entitlement mentality" indeed. They ought to know - they are the masters of it. "Gimme gimme gimme everything I can get my grubby little hands on, give it to me now, and give it to me for nothing!"

Unbelievable how these insatiable world-grabbing gluttonous pigs have the nerve to complain about someone on food stamps, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faux pas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. You are absolutely right....now what? Seems like maybe them
dems will keeping it all business as usual. Too sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Well, For Starters
make sure your fellow progressives are aware of all this.

I know that most of us are well aware of it in *general* terms, and if someone said "liberals tax and spend" we'd correctly reply "well, conservatives borrow and spend". But not everyone is aware of the specifics.

It's much easier for anyone, regardless of their political views, to dismiss or not grasp the full weight of this debt issue if we present it only in broad, generic terms. Democrats have done a poor job framing this issue. Again, the vague generalities are uninspiring and often end up sounding like tired, partisan opinion. Then again launching into a lengthy, complicated discussion of the debt isn't likely to win many people over either.

But if you rattled of a few of the simple, damning facts (and they really are damning IMO), I think people would be shocked. As a big fan of analogy, I love the Giant National Credit Card idea as it creates an awesome visual we can all identify with. Come to think of it, someone could probably make some good political signs and or cartoons with it (if they already have, great!).

I know someone suggested saying "He led us into an illegal war, and has been spending like a drunken sailor ever since", and while I agree with this statement, I think it's far too easy for moderates/conservatives to dismiss without much thought.

By contrast, saying "Over 70% of the 9 trillion dollar national debt is due to 3 *Republican* presidents" cannot be so easily shrugged off as it's not just an opinion.

Same deal with the Reagan facts. Come to think of it, some of these one liners would make great t-shirts (oh boy, now the gears in my head are *really* turning)! If I had the resources, I'd be inclined to create a website (maybe called TheRealDebtIssue.com?) with clear and easy (referenced) facts, figures and visual aids (including cartoons and videos).

Yes, I really think this issue is THAT important. Aside from the enormous practical implications it has on all of us, it has the potential to haunt the republican party (and destroy their unearned reputation for "fiscal responsibility") for years (if not decades) to come...*if* it becomes common knowledge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faux pas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
27. Is there a link to an article or something that I can include when
I pass this info on? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Here's
a great article by Thom Hartmann (it's in the form of a monthly book review but it manages to talk about some of these issues):

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/07/har05007.html

But again, I think we need to distill this issue down to some useful factoids, analogies and key phrases if it's going to get any traction in the mainstream. That's why I love the Giant National Credit Card analogy (it's quite possible someone else is pushing that too and I just haven't seen it).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faux pas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-07-08 04:19 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Thank you. I always thought Greenspan had waaaaay to much
power. How stupid is it to let one (fallible and probably easily corrupted) human run our economy? Rhetorical question of course. Keep plugging away at this, you are seriously on to something that needs to be shouted around the country.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. Quiet. We need the $400 for next month's heating oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
90-percent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
6. Free Lunch
A new book by some economics guy named David K. Johnstone. He was interviewed on NPR Fresh Air. Talked about bush's Texas Ranger deal, which was gotten by RAISING the sales tax. Tax the many to benefit the few, plus some nice eminent domain taking of property adjacent to the ball park.

Sounds like a good book. Please read and then post the "executive summary"

-90% Jimmy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
7. I cannot say how much this is upsetting
because I just know those "moderates" in the Democratic party are probably already aligning with their GOPer cohorts to make sure that these tax cuts for the rich and corporations get passed into law.

If Pelosi and Reid were real leaders of the Democratic party, they wouldn't even put up for a vote this so called economic stimulus of the greedy elite bill.

But I'm not willing to be even a nickel on the chances that they won't.

Good first rant ihavenobias.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. Excellent first rant, ihavenobias
Just so you know, you'll enjoy the second time even better than the first. Your more relaxed and know what to expect and all that. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. Thanks and I hope so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. Great rant! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
12. Why do you think they are pushing this? It has nothing to do with the
economy and everything to do with members in congress running for president and for reelection. The GOP thinks that it will be a great campaign spot to show to say that the dems voted against the tax cut OR support the same economic policies as the GOP.

This administration is all about political calculations rather than giving a damn about sound public policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. I hear you, and I agree.
But there's little use getting worked up about 1 billion dollars. The Federal budget is over 2 trillion dollars per year now, I think. And I thought we were paying closer to 100 billion/year in interest on the national debt.

... but I don't have the hard figures in front of me.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Just looked it up.
Interest on the public debt was $321 billion in 2004. Total outlays were $2.292 trillion. According to the World Almanac.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. But it's the context
Edited on Sat Jan-05-08 03:34 PM by ihavenobias
Sure, 1 billion dollars might not seem like a lot compared to the total budget, but again, that's 1 billion essentially flushed down the toilet.

Who wouldn't like an extra billion dollars to go toward investment in infrastructure or alternative energy (or S-CHIP or fill in the blank of hundreds of other programs)?

I think if you present this to the American people, most of them *would* think 1 billion dollars in interest (tied to one president who happens to be republican and revered by many) IS a lot of money, and that's the important part. And obviously, the specific amount of interest was just one of many facts regarding the debt.

Another one off the top of my head is that in order to pay off the debt, each US citizen would have to pay something like $30,000 (or so). Why not commercials or signs or cartoons (again, if these already exist, awesome, but they're not as widespread as they need to be and our Dems aren't pushing them enough) that share this simple message?

Some obscure blog or editorial buried on page 30 (that will primarily only be read by die-hard political junkies) doesn't count in my mind. Yes, *some* people are talking about these issues, but it's not reaching the *right* people. Sadly, much of the public is too lazy to even read an entire article. But a cartoon, t-shirt, commercial or interest-sparking one-liner in conversation?

That's another story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dave From Canada Donating Member (932 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. Why can't sacrifice ever mean spending cuts? That would be true sacrifice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onethatcares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. but it does mean spending cuts,
cuts in programs that might actually help the poor or middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Hold on a minute though
Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate (the very top tax rate that only kicks in after the first 3.2 million dollars earned) from 71% to 28%, what I believe to be the largest income tax cut in our history. By contrast the middle class only received a tiny fraction of a cut comparatively.

He then went on to raid money allocated for social security (hundreds of billions of dollars). But the cherry on top was that he *doubled* the social security tax which is capped at something like the first $90,000 of income. In other words, someone who makes $90,000 a year or less (aka, most people) is taxed on 100% of their income for social security compared to someone who makes $360,000 a year being taxed only on the first 25%.

His dramatically increased military spending coupled with the lost revenue from the (income) tax cuts created the conditions for which he had to borrow insane amounts of money (and raid insane amounts of money from what is essentially the national retirement savings account).

Personally, I think if we increase the top rate to around 50% (which is still MUCH lower than 71% it was under Kennedy-Reagan the especially the 91% it was under republican Eisenhower-Kennedy), we'll once again help level the playing field (to an extent).

Obviously there are other factors at play here but that's a good first step.

PS---Don't believe the hype when someone tries to argue that tax revenue increased with Reagan in office. Not only did Reagan count social security taxes toward these inflated amounts, but there's the simple fact that tax revenues pretty much increase *every* term because of generic population and economic growth coupled with inflation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
21. Republicans TAX OUR CHILDREN
by running up HUGE National Debt.
Our Children and their children will be FORCED to pay this off.
Halliburton and the other War Profiteers take their profits from our Childrens money today!

Talk about Taxation without representation!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. You're absolutely right
but I was disappointed tonight when both Clinton and Obama referred to "tax relief". Richardson also talked about cutting taxes for the middle class.

At first glance this *seems* like it makes sense and superficially might sound like a good thing, but I really believe it buys into the conservative framing that taxes are always bad, and an affliction that requires "relief".

This isn't how they should be framing these tax issues!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. Taxes for generations out
Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 08:53 AM by mac2
yet they continue. Most in Congress are old or have no children. What do they care? Their children will live on our money which they have stolen from us. They swagger away with huge pillage and book deals. They have been paid off for their vote (mostly done in the dark of night) while in "public service".

Most of them couldn't make this kind of money in private life. They turn against us thinking they deserve it. They are royals in a manner of speaking.

Meanwhile America is in deep financial and economic trouble. Our enemies and allies run away with what's left. Our Congress looks the other way. Shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
23. Implementing a $10,000 tax credit for monster trucks wouldn't
surprise me at this point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Nor is it enough to pay for the damage
and repair of any highway. They are also dangerous on the highway for the driver and the other vehicles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
24. lots more than $1B in interest on Reagan's debt
1 billion dollars worth of interest in 2005 on Reagan's debt alone

Has to be a lot more than that. Reagan racked up a couple trillion in debt. In 2003 $318 billion was spent on interest payments servicing the total debt, out of a total tax revenue of $1,952 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. As I mentioned previously
I got that figure from Thom Hartmann and he's not known to understate such numbers.

Granted, I admit I didn't confirm it myself (although he sourced it and I can't recall the source). But one thing to keep in mind is that the interest rates are pretty low in this context...it's just that the sums of money involved are so enormous.

If you can find a higher figure, share it, it makes the argument even stronger!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
26. This plan to loot America was developed under Reagan by Mr. Fed - Greenspan.
First, Reagan raised Social Security taxes to fill the Social Security fund with tons of cash. Then they cut taxes for the rich people and "borrowed" an equivalent amount from the fund to make up the difference and replaced the cash that they looted with government IOU's.

Then they went on a military spending spree: B1 bombers, B2 bombers, SDI ("Star Wars") to give huge amounts of our tax dollars to their friends over at the military/industrial complex.

They now had produced huge Federal deficits so the government borrowed money from the banks, insurance companies, etc., at relatively large interest rates, payable by the U.S taxpayer. However, they had already lowered the taxes for the wealthy so the interest and dividend income that the rich received by loaning the government the money was hardly taxed at all. The corporations and the wealthy made out like bandits. They not only got paid big bucks for boondoggles, but they loaned the money at large interest rates to the government to pay for the boondoggles and were allowed to keep it by not having to pay taxes on it. I know it is complex, but think about it to understand how it works.

Any excuses that they give to rationalize spending programs or tax cuts are just a smokescreen for looting America.

The use of ethanol in the gasoline is another scam that is costing Americans dearly. Ethanol does NOT save oil or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases since your vehicles mileage drops significantly when they put ethanol in it. (I have proved this to myself by comparing my car's gas mileage (with two different cars) when using ethanol gas and gasoline without ethanol.)

Another way that the rich rob Americans (transfer money from the middle class to the wealthy) was also promoted by Mr. Fed - Greenspan. As head of the Fed, Greenspan lowered the prime interest rate to exceedingly low values, way below what the economic conditions called for. The excuse given was to encourage the economy. That was not the real reason.

The real reason for lowering the interest rates was twofold. First, this allowed the banks to get away with paying very little interest on savings accounts, CD's, and bank-issued money market accounts. At the same time, the banks were charging significantly larger rates to customers on their charge cards and even mortgages. The "spread" gave enormous profits to the banks.

Second, The low interest rates on savings accounts, CD's, etc. gave stock brokers a key selling point to get middle class people to transfer their savings from federally-insured instruments into the stock market. "The stock market is booming and you middle class people are losing out", went the sales pitch. The middle class took the bait and started buying stock. The big pile of cash thrown at the stock market boosted the market value way beyond sustainable profit levels, and made possible and encouraged the fraud perpetrated by Enron and hundreds of other companies. The extra beauty of this scam is that their is no liability for the corporate insiders who bailed out with billions of dollars in profit before the stock market "collapsed".

At the same time as the stock market scam was proceeding, the wealthy were promoting "privatization" of Social Security which would have pumped more middle class (suckers) money into an already inflated stock market. Now the rich are telling us how wonderful the economy is doing because stock prices haven't collapsed. The stock prices are being artificially maintained ("price inflation"). There is no "real" economic activity maintaining the stock price level. As long as the rich keep trading huge amounts of stock, they will keep the prices up.

With large amounts of real unemployment (the government employment/unemployment numbers that they publish are a huge hoax), with food prices rising rapidly thanks to the turning of food (corn) into ethanol, with the value of the dollar dropping regularly thanks to the huge corporate-sponsored trade and Federal deficits, with the housing market tanking because of irresponsible mortgage lending -- what have I left out? -- the U.S. economy is hanging by a thread.

Of course, the wealthy ring their hands and ask for reduced taxes on the rich to jump-start the economy. Anyone who entertains such an idea is an idiot or totally insane.

Their is a solution. It requires the government to take several steps.

First, rewrite all the trade agreements to take the power away from the corporations to set trade policy. Rewrite or scrap NAFTA, WTO, IMF, the World Bank, etc. Put quotas and tariffs on imports to make it unprofitable to offshore manufacturing and white collar jobs that can be performed just as well here in America. By leveling the playing field so that smaller businesses can compete with the multinationals, prices to consumers will NOT increase appreciably. The corporations merely pocket labor cost savings as profit. They do NOT pass along their savings to you the consumer.

Second, make health insurance coverage available to all Americans so that it is NOT tied to one's job. This will enable smaller businesses to compete with the larger corporations by eliminating a cost that the smaller companies cannot sustain and still maintain a competitive price structure. Also, it would enable individuals to start their own small businesses to better their situation. The need for affordable health insurance stifles entrepreneurs, which benefits the big multinational corporations.

Third, recognize that the economy is DEMAND driven, NOT supply driven. Give rich people tax breaks to spur the economy, and they will do exactly what the rich have done for the past 25 years -- they will build factories in China to tap into developing markets there. To build the American economy, provide jobs here so that Americans will have money to buy goods and services and more jobs will be created in the U.S. Moreover, these working Americans will pay taxes and reduce the deficit since the government will no longer have to borrow money to pay its way. "Supply side economics" is a giant fraud.

When, not if, the recession hits, there is only one way to get out of it. The government has to create jobs (that is correct, spend money) by putting people to work providing services for people. NO no-bid contracts to Halliburton. In fact, all those fraudulant contracts have to be rescinded. Americans have to be hired to rebuild infrastructure and provide services to Americans. NO contracts to companies who hire aliens at starvation wages instead of Americans. And put stringent penalties in any contracts for those companies who violate the rules.

Fourth, to reduce our dependence on oil, no more ethanol from corn in the gasoline. Mandate strict mileage and emissions standards for ALL vehicles: cars, trucks, SUV's, and buses and impose and enforce strict penalties for noncompliance. The technology exists today to improve all vehicles within the next five years. And, forget waiting for hydrogen fueled cars. That is another fraud designed to keep all transportation options in the grasp of the oil companies. Hybrid-electric and plug-in electric is the answer to reducing oil consumption and reducing pollution. The technology is available today, and its implementation can reduce the REAL costs now.

The multinational corporations have been looting America long enough. The middle class has been gutted and is hanging on by a thread. Conservative economist Kevin Phillips, who was Richard Nixon's economics advisor, explained in his book "Wealth and Democracy" how the wealthy elite in every empire destroyed their societies by destroying their middle classes. The Roman, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch empires arose because of the efforts of a "middle class", and then were destroyed by the greed of a wealthy elite who preferred colonialism (cheap foreign labor and resources) and pursued disastrous wars to hold on to that empire. The wealthy elite taxed their middle class into poverty to support an extravagant life style and maintain huge armies and navies to hold on to their colonies.

You don't need a crystal ball to see into the future. I have described the scenario and what needs to be done to prevent it from destroying our country. The "safety net" put into place by president Franklin D. Roosevelt has already been removed by the wealthy. It no longer exists. The "crash" of 1929 and the recession of the 1930's that followed it could happen here. The Fed won't help us. It fueled the trouble we are in to enable the rich to get richer. Lowering the interest rates won't help. If people have no money to spend because they lost it all to the rich, how will lending them money at low interest rates solve anything if they have no way to pay it back.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-06-08 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Greenspan should be up for robbery
and treason under RICO. History is repeating itself lead by the elite who think of themselves as priviledged world leaders (Bilderberg Group). They belong to no country but the world gang.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC