Elephant Ghosts in the Room
The new film "Lincoln", based on Doris Kearns-Goodwin's book "Team of Rivals", is doing quite well - critically and at the box office. Suddenly our sixteenth president is everywhere, even making the cover of Time magazine recently. There's a good reason that this man's face is gracing the front of so many newspapers and periodicals nearly one-hundred and fifty years after his passing. He still matters. When was the last time you heard the name of his successor, Andrew Johnson, mentioned in any context? Whenever the name Abraham Lincoln reenters our national conversation it always elevates us as a nation.`
President Lincoln was the first Republican to live in the Executive Mansion (as the White House was officially called in his time). He was also - unarguably - one of our greatest presidents. With his party imploding before our very eyes, the GOP is at the moment desperate for some positive publicity. You would think that they would be bending over backwards to point out to the masses that they are the political descendants of Abraham Lincoln, wouldn't you? And yet they barely acknowledge him. Why do you think that is? I have a theory.
From its founding in the 1830's the Democratic party had the albatross of the southern racists hanging around its neck. Indeed, for slightly over a century after the end of the Civil War, relatively few whites in the old confederacy would register with the Republicans. It was, after all, the party of "that bearded bastard that freed our slaves". In 1964 and 1965 when President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts into law, there soon followed a mass-exodus of bigots who fled the Democrats.
POP QUIZ: Which party did they flee to? Go on, take a wild guess!
Prior to the 1960's, Republicans took understandable pride in their connection to the Great Emancipator. That is not the case anymore. The ideological descendants of the Dixiecrats of old who now pollute the GOP would rather not be reminded of their connection to Abe Lincoln thank you very much. They know damned well that if the people take a real close look, they'll see quite clearly that the agenda of the modern day Republican party is anathema to everything that President Lincoln stood for. Don't go there. And please never again refer to it as "the party of Abraham Lincoln". His influence on the GOP ended at 7:22 on the morning of April 15, 1865 when he breathed his final breath.
Abraham Lincoln's image is carved for all eternity onto the face of Mount Rushmore - as is Theodore Roosevelt's. Think about that: two Republicans - and not a single freakin Democrat! Washington and Jefferson (the other two faces on Rushmore) were long-dead by the time the Democratic party was formed. The Republicans should be proud of that, don'cha think? But no, Teddy Roosevelt, another president who deserves to be placed in the "great" category, is the invisible man as far as these knuckleheads are concerned - and with jolly good reason.
"We
demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return
we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly
endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."
-Theodore Roosevelt
If the Republicans of his day had had their way, TR would never have been president. They made him William McKinley's vice-president because he was causing so many headaches for them as the reform-minded governor of New York. They needed to find a place for him where he couldn't do any harm. In that time the office of VP was without worth or power. This was long before the invention of Dick Cheney.
Mark Hannah was to President McKinley what Karl Rove was to George W. Bush. He condescendingly dismissed Roosevelt as "that damned cowboy". In September of 1901 McKinley was assassinated. That damned cowboy was now president of the United States, Oops.
Were Theodore Roosevelt to rise from the dead tonight and announce his intention to run for the office of the President in 2016, he would most definitely be handed the nomination - from the Democrats. The Republicans wouldn't nominate him to run as Sanitation commissioner of Oyster Bay, NY.
In fact, four years after he left the presidency he sought the office again. In 1912 Roosevelt was bitterly disappointed that his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, had been wooed and won by the right wing of the Republican party. He challenged Taft in the primaries and arrived at the convention in Chicago with more-than-enough delegates to rightfully claim the nomination. The plutocrats who controlled the Republican party weren't about to let that happen. They had had enough of Teddy Roosevelt's progressive reform. The title of standard bearer went to Taft.
Theodore Roosevelt bolted the Republicans at that moment and ran as a third party candidate. He called it the "Progressive Party" but it was popularly known as the "Bull Moose Party". During that campaign one-hundred years ago a madman fired a gun at Roosevelt, the bullet lodging near his left lung. Unbelievably he insisted on giving the hour-long speech he was scheduled to make at that moment. "It takes more than a bullet to kill a bull moose!" he said. The guy was incredible.
Roosevelt's insurgent candidacy ended up splitting the GOP vote that year. The White House would go to a former Princeton professor and New Jersey governor named Woodrow Wilson. When Theodore Roosevelt died in the early morning hours of January 6, 1919, the progressive wing of the Republican party died with him. They're gone forever.
Dwight David Eisenhower is another Republican whose name is never mentioned by his political heirs. I wonder why?
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear from that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things....Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
Oh, that's why. Eisenhower can't be accused of political pandering when he made that statement. It is quoted from a private letter he wrote to his brother Edgar and was never meant for public consumption. It only came to light decades after his death in 1969.
That's right, boys and girls, old Ike was a progressive Republican! Believe it or not, such a political animal did exist at one time in this country. They're pretty much extinct now. Although his foreign policy left a bit to be desired, domestically he get's a high grade. When Dwight Eisenhower lived in the White House, he understood that investing in America was the key to its success - not reducing the taxes for a class of people who already had more money than they knew what to do with. In fact, in his time, some of the richest one percent were taxed at a ninety percent rate. Eisenhower never had the need - nor the desire - to change things. The interstate highway system that we now take for granted was created under his watch. Before that, if you wanted to drive from Chicago to Los Angeles, you had to get your kicks on Route 66 - a two lane highway! Can you imagine?
Thankful for this nation's infrastructure, crumbling though it may be? Tip your hat to Republican president Eisenhower.
These three chiefs executive - Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower - are just three reasons the present-day Republican party have to feel justly proud. Isn't it funny that not one of them are ever mentioned in the GOP's campaign literature? What's even funnier is the fact that most of the grand-old-partiers who lived in the White House are remembered today as complete failures. Reading their propaganda you would think that Ronald Reagan was the first Republican president, wouldn't you? History's final judgement has yet to catch up to Reagan. It will, though. It will.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
SUGGESTED READING:
A Team of Rivals
by Doris Kearns-Goodwin
AFTERTHOUGHT:
There has been talk in recent years of adding a fifth face to Mount Rushmore. I think that's a dandy idea. Unfortunately the opinion of a lot of people is that it should be Reagan's face up there. If that happens so help me I'm moving to Upper Volta. If there is any justice in this world it will be Franklin D. Roosevelt's smiling face up there - minus the cigarette holder of course. That would be just a tad politically incorrect I think.
From its founding in the 1830's the Democratic party had the albatross of the southern racists hanging around its neck. Indeed, for slightly over a century after the end of the Civil War, relatively few whites in the old confederacy would register with the Republicans. It was, after all, the party of "that bearded bastard that freed our slaves". In 1964 and 1965 when President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts into law, there soon followed a mass-exodus of bigots who fled the Democrats.
POP QUIZ: Which party did they flee to? Go on, take a wild guess!
Prior to the 1960's, Republicans took understandable pride in their connection to the Great Emancipator. That is not the case anymore. The ideological descendants of the Dixiecrats of old who now pollute the GOP would rather not be reminded of their connection to Abe Lincoln thank you very much. They know damned well that if the people take a real close look, they'll see quite clearly that the agenda of the modern day Republican party is anathema to everything that President Lincoln stood for. Don't go there. And please never again refer to it as "the party of Abraham Lincoln". His influence on the GOP ended at 7:22 on the morning of April 15, 1865 when he breathed his final breath.
Abraham Lincoln's image is carved for all eternity onto the face of Mount Rushmore - as is Theodore Roosevelt's. Think about that: two Republicans - and not a single freakin Democrat! Washington and Jefferson (the other two faces on Rushmore) were long-dead by the time the Democratic party was formed. The Republicans should be proud of that, don'cha think? But no, Teddy Roosevelt, another president who deserves to be placed in the "great" category, is the invisible man as far as these knuckleheads are concerned - and with jolly good reason.
"We
demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return
we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly
endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal."-Theodore Roosevelt
If the Republicans of his day had had their way, TR would never have been president. They made him William McKinley's vice-president because he was causing so many headaches for them as the reform-minded governor of New York. They needed to find a place for him where he couldn't do any harm. In that time the office of VP was without worth or power. This was long before the invention of Dick Cheney.
Mark Hannah was to President McKinley what Karl Rove was to George W. Bush. He condescendingly dismissed Roosevelt as "that damned cowboy". In September of 1901 McKinley was assassinated. That damned cowboy was now president of the United States, Oops.
Were Theodore Roosevelt to rise from the dead tonight and announce his intention to run for the office of the President in 2016, he would most definitely be handed the nomination - from the Democrats. The Republicans wouldn't nominate him to run as Sanitation commissioner of Oyster Bay, NY.
In fact, four years after he left the presidency he sought the office again. In 1912 Roosevelt was bitterly disappointed that his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, had been wooed and won by the right wing of the Republican party. He challenged Taft in the primaries and arrived at the convention in Chicago with more-than-enough delegates to rightfully claim the nomination. The plutocrats who controlled the Republican party weren't about to let that happen. They had had enough of Teddy Roosevelt's progressive reform. The title of standard bearer went to Taft.
Theodore Roosevelt bolted the Republicans at that moment and ran as a third party candidate. He called it the "Progressive Party" but it was popularly known as the "Bull Moose Party". During that campaign one-hundred years ago a madman fired a gun at Roosevelt, the bullet lodging near his left lung. Unbelievably he insisted on giving the hour-long speech he was scheduled to make at that moment. "It takes more than a bullet to kill a bull moose!" he said. The guy was incredible.
Roosevelt's insurgent candidacy ended up splitting the GOP vote that year. The White House would go to a former Princeton professor and New Jersey governor named Woodrow Wilson. When Theodore Roosevelt died in the early morning hours of January 6, 1919, the progressive wing of the Republican party died with him. They're gone forever.
Dwight David Eisenhower is another Republican whose name is never mentioned by his political heirs. I wonder why?
"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear from that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things....Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
Oh, that's why. Eisenhower can't be accused of political pandering when he made that statement. It is quoted from a private letter he wrote to his brother Edgar and was never meant for public consumption. It only came to light decades after his death in 1969.
Thankful for this nation's infrastructure, crumbling though it may be? Tip your hat to Republican president Eisenhower.
These three chiefs executive - Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower - are just three reasons the present-day Republican party have to feel justly proud. Isn't it funny that not one of them are ever mentioned in the GOP's campaign literature? What's even funnier is the fact that most of the grand-old-partiers who lived in the White House are remembered today as complete failures. Reading their propaganda you would think that Ronald Reagan was the first Republican president, wouldn't you? History's final judgement has yet to catch up to Reagan. It will, though. It will.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
SUGGESTED READING:
A Team of Rivals
by Doris Kearns-Goodwin
AFTERTHOUGHT:There has been talk in recent years of adding a fifth face to Mount Rushmore. I think that's a dandy idea. Unfortunately the opinion of a lot of people is that it should be Reagan's face up there. If that happens so help me I'm moving to Upper Volta. If there is any justice in this world it will be Franklin D. Roosevelt's smiling face up there - minus the cigarette holder of course. That would be just a tad politically incorrect I think.
posted by Tom Degan @ 5:49 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
Good morning Tom,
As always a great article. I have been saying to anyone thats wants to listen to me since this past 2012 election that we need to return to the single party candidate. Meaning no more cross endorsements of a candidate. Thats how we got those great men that you mentioned. We simply can not continue to let the Conservatives highjack the Republican Party pricipals nor to a lesssor degree the liberals, oh sorry the Working Family Party, highjack the Democrat Party pricipals. As a Republican I am tired of hearing that we need the Conservatives to win an election and then when our Republican cadidate appeases the Conservative branch the mainstream voters of the party either stay home or cross over to the Democrats who are often times more in line with our priorities than our own party candidate. I say if you want a Republican, Democrat, Liberal or conservative candidate each party should put up its each individual candidate only then will you truly see where this country is at politically speaking. Think about it.
Sincerely
Tom V
Ahem, that should be principals and candidates. I really can spell honest.
Hope all is well,
Tom V.
Ralph said,
Part I
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Blacks voted overwhelmingly for the GOP. Problem was the democrats limited their ability to vote using Jim Crow laws in the states the democrats controlled. This limiting of the black vote allowed the democrats to control the Congress for most of history between 1930 up until 1986. During this period, the party in power for the majority of the time, did nothing to enforce the 13th Amendment. Including FDR. (A review of the relationship between civil rights and FDR's actions would make a great study. Especially in light of the American concentration camps he had built for American citizens of Japanese descent)
The Civil Rights Act would not have passed were it not for the support of the GOP. As a way of rewarding the GOP for their nonpartisan vote, Blacks now vote over whelming for the democrats.
LBJ, a follower of FDR may have have realized that to fund his Vietnam War, taxes would have to be raised. Not wanting to do this, (maybe due to JFK's recent reduction of taxes as a way out of a recession?) he dipped into the Social Security Fund to pay for the democrat party's war without raising taxes. I believe LBJ saw S.S. as a democrat legacy, would not continue if he continued to take from it to fund his party's war. So he looked for another way of proving for the long term growth and security of his party to replace the New Deal, ergo, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do not forget that LBJ was in Congress during FDR's terms. If he was such a strong supporter of civil rights, he could have been its champion way before 1964. The historical record is deafening with it's silence on that matter.
I saw Lincoln last night. What I found interesting was it was the democrats of the day that fought against the 13th Amendment. Today, the democrats have hijacked the meaning of the 13th as was expressed by Congressman Stevens in the movie. No longer are all races viewed by the law as equal. Affirmative action is a prime example of how the law now views equal rights. Some races are more equal that others.
When a group of people, be it a Union or race, advocacy group (PETA) etc. vote close to 100% for one party, one has to question if their vote is based on the view that 13th makes all equal in the sight of the law, and their vote supports that party position. Or does their vote reflect something more? That the group hopes to get something in exchange for their vote that is above the equal in the eyes of the law concept?
Part II
So the problem now for the Democrat Party is as blacks(our nations largest minority voting block) become more successful due to the Civil Rights Act that would not have passed with the votes of the GOP Congress, why would they continue to vote for them? If the black voter becomes a successful member of the private work sector, will they vote for the democrats or will they treat them like they treated the GOP after 1964? Or will they vote for less federal rules and regulations and lower taxes, the hall mark of the GOP? The democrats could not afford the risk to lose this large block of voters who no longer needed the. After all with Union membership dropping as federal rules, regulations and taxes drove the jobs overseas, the democrats face a future where Americans would forget the New Deal and come to realize that they were better equipped to take care of themselves than the government. What to do?
Let's review our current situation.
We now have the highest number of people on govt aid (as a percentage or even in raw numbers) ever in our history.
Amazingly, the steps taken and the money spent by this administration to correct this, have not worked!
Our Federal govt is advertising that there is assistance available for those who ask, with TV ads and in Mexico.
The public sector of our work force continues to grow in numbers and income.
The private sector continues to shrink employment numbers and income.
The proposed tax increases on the "rich" will provide just 8 days of revenue to operate our government. So, is the basis of this increase based on a need for class war?
Consideration of the removal of mortgage interest deduction. Not all of us have access to that deduction, removal would make it "fair"?
Take away the private retirement plans, IRA, and 401k. Why, not all of us have them, so this would make it "fair"? Also would increase payroll tax and go along way to getting S.S. balanced
This is not an accident, not the fault of a prior President, it is what this administration wants.
Why?
It is to transform our American economy into a centralized, socialist economy. For this would guaranty the future of the Democrat Party for as long as there was money left to tax from the private sector economy.
Anonymous "Amazingly, the steps taken and the money spent by this administration to correct this, have not worked!"
Four years of feckless Democrats and obstructionist Republicans isn't enough to compensate for ten trillion dollars evaporating? I'm stunned! Shocked (shocked!) I say!
"The public sector of our work force continues to grow in numbers and income."
Obviously. Damn those cushy public servants and their big, big incomes and their, hold on, wage-freezes and layoffs.
"The private sector continues to shrink employment numbers and income."
Weird. Corporate profits are breaking records. Hmmm.
"The proposed tax increases on the 'rich' will provide just 8 days of revenue to operate our government."
So let's not bother, amirite? I mean, the Ryan Plan of block-granting Medicaid, privatizing Medicare, voucherizing Social Security, increasing the budget at the Pentagon, and cutting (again) taxes (again) at the top (again) will surely work.
I mean, cutting things that work and doubling down on things that don't is clearly the thing to do. (On a side note, to bring home more money I cut my hours at work, and to save money I bought a boat. Didn't even haggle)
"So, is the basis of this increase based on a need for class war?"
No. It's on the basis that, as Stimulus, tax cuts at the top have a marginal effect at a great cost (the high estimate is an abysmal 0.1% effect on unemployment). Temporary tax cuts not being extended for the only group in the US that's doing well (how about all of the gains from 2000-2007 and 93% of the gains in the recovery?)
"Consideration of the removal of mortgage interest deduction. Not all of us have access to that deduction, removal would make it 'fair'?"
Fair or not, good policy or not, it won't happen. "Entitlements" no means "things that the poor get" (much as "Stimulus" was "pork", but only when it was spent outside my district). The mortgage interest deduction is one of those things that disproportionately benefits the top, but has a positive effect on the middle class.
"Take away the private retirement plans, IRA, and 401k."
Meh. The Market did that for us.
"Also would increase payroll tax and go along way to getting S.S. balanced"
No, no, no! The extreme liberal position (filled by Obama, apparently) is to raise the retirement age, over time, two years (janitors and waitresses, you see, have to work more years because doctors and lawyers are living longer). The Moderate position, apparently, is to cut now, cut hard, and cut often. The rational, Republican, plan is to give it to Wall Street.
"This is not an accident, not the fault of a prior President, it is what this administration wants. Why?
It is to transform our American economy into a centralized, socialist economy."
Exactly. That's why the Fed keeps pumping money in at the top, why none of the big heads behind the Mortgage Crisis have been prosecuted (and why some of them got gigs in past and present Administrations), and why Obamacare's Individual Mandate uses private insurance. Because Socialism.
Wups. That should be "voucherizing Medicare, privatizing Social Security". I posted when I wanted to preview.
Anonymous "Amazingly, the steps taken and the money spent by this administration to correct this, have not worked!"
Four years of feckless Democrats and obstructionist Republicans isn't enough to compensate for ten trillion dollars evaporating? I'm stunned! Shocked (shocked!) I say" MO.
So its not the plan that failed, it was someone else that cause this perfect plan to fail?
History, if recorded as it happened, not as it will be revised, will report the failure of socialism and central economic government control every where it is tried. Starting with the Russian Revelation in 1917 followed by the Nazis in German then China, North Korea, and Cuba then later the nations of Europe. Hopefully Americans will see these failures and not continue to vote in the party that promises them the most for their vote, paid for by someone else, or worse yet, paid for with borrowed money.
That is my hope.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom, thanks for another terrific article. One of the best aspects of your writing is your wonderful history lessons, unfortunately something not learned by many or not taught today. We should always look to the past as a guide to the future.
Who the hell is Ralph, and what makes the cult member so quote worthy?
democrats face a future where Americans would forget the New Deal and come to realize that they were better equipped to take care of themselves than the government.
Time for gramps and granny to get off their lazy socialist asses and get out in the fields for ConAgra.
MO,
Your problem is you don't know liberals are commies. Or worse, you really do know, and you're some kind of international kommisar, planting your red flag in "God's Republican Garden"..
Yes, that's it. It's the only possible explanation.
More lies from DAVE DUBYA
A Lawyer, a Pathological Liar, a Racist, a Muslim, a Socialist, an Elitist, a Sexist and an Egomaniac walk into a bar.
Bartender asks….
“What’ll it be, Mr. President?”
Liberals are commies. I learned that from Anonymous. If they're not, he's got some explaining to do.
Oh, that's right, he never explains or provides proof of his accusations and fake quotes.
Whoever are we to believe in such dark times as these...if only an honest Right Winger existed to lead us to salvation...
“He’s(Obama) gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He(Obama) thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere.
Ralph Nader
Dave Dubya: "...if only an honest Right Winger existed to lead us to salvation..."
An honest Right Winger? That's an oxymoron.
Ralph Nader is telling the truth!
Anonymous: "Ralph Nader is telling the truth!"
Agreed...he always does.
Great pieve, Tom. Funny how so much changes yet stays the same. Sounds to me I could have been Republican way back when. Too bad moderates on both sides are now endangered species.
Sure, Obama's awful on that. Aw. Ful. Will it change? No. His voters couldn't push him to (because what were they going to do, primary him?), his party won't (can't appear weak on Defense, you know, even though they'll be charged with that no matter how many people they explode), and the other side isn't even mad about the Drone War (rather, falling instead into paranoid/Worldnetdaily/Bircherist "ARMED EPA DRONES ARE SPYING ON ME! OUTRAGE!").
...
Now try to convince me that the GOP equivalent would be any better. Keep in mind that one of Romney's foreign policy advisors was John Bolton, who never met a problem that couldn't be solved by calling it names and punching it in the face, and that the rest of the GOP clown car (exempt Ron Paul and probable Huntsman) were just as sabre-rattlingly belligerent.
...
Long story short; we're screwed. Making swarthy foreingers explode, no matter the price, is bipartisan.
"Now try to convince me that the GOP equivalent would be any better"
To do so would be a waste of time MO, the President is Obama, not a GOP equivalent.
Your position is like saying that if you had passage on the Titanic, it wouldn't be so bad if you were in first class. Ignoring the fact the ship sank regardless of where you were staying.
Ralph Nader is telling the truth about Obama, he is worse than GWB. Obama does think he is the King of the world, he does want to punish those who opposed him, and he really doesn't have a heart for people, just read Bob Woodard.
Anonymous "To do so would be a waste of time MO, the President is Obama, not a GOP equivalent."
Yes. And, again, would McCain or Romney be any better...or would they be worse? Will, say, Ryan in 2016 do anything to roll back the decades-long increase in Executive Power, on issues ranging from drones to State Secrets Privilege?
If you think so you're more naive than I am.
"Your position is like saying that if you had passage on the Titanic, it wouldn't be so bad if you were in first class. Ignoring the fact the ship sank regardless of where you were staying."
No. And also you're on the Titanic, too, saying "Look how bad the Captain is!", then replying "Mumble" when asked if you have any potential Captains that are better. And also you accuse the Captain of "weakness" and/or "emboldening our enemies" when he's not exploding foreigners hard enough (repeating the same points when he explodes them harder), rather than pointing out that he shouldn't be so cavalier with the explodings, that there should be more oversight, and that the CIA is a civilian operation, not a military one (all things that the liberal Left, and scattered groups elsewhere [like Reason] are doing*). And when the Right does get mad over drones, it's about something that they aren't even doing.
And that's the story, the marginalized Left standing alone while the Right tilts at windmills. Imagine how much more pressure could be applied to get Obama (and Reid and the Legislative in general) to do the right thing if the Right didn't virtually ignore actual stories, instead focusing on fiction and bad faith arguments from con-men and sociopaths. Nothing will change until that changes (the general shake-out in the Dems, where Blue Dogs and the like get ousted, won't be enough. This is because they're Democrats). And that won't change, because the Republican Base is out of it's mind.
* And the Left is so powerful that Obama can completely ignore them on most issues.
Your losing MO. An argument based on coulda shoulda, woulda has no place in the real world.
Nader is correct.
Regulations, we need more regulations. . . and more government. We could reduce unemployment to zero if everyone worked for the government. . . . and we have too many oyster farms working in pristine national coastline areas that should be preserved for future generations....and we need the federal government to take control over more land to preserve for future generations....and we need federal restrictions on oil and gas exploration on federal lands to preserve the natural beauty for future generations....and we need to end the obstruction of Obama's vision for America.....it is only fair that we all suffer the resulting misery equally, except for the ruling political class who have saved us from ourselves and preserved the nation for future generations. . . .
Ineptocracy:
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
When the POTUS has never had a job other than government he comes to believe that the government is the answer to all ills.
Anonymous "Your losing MO. An argument based on coulda shoulda, woulda has no place in the real world."
"Can you do better?" is a perfectly valid reposte. It's easy to be a back seat driver. It is, however, harder to do so when it's pointed out that you're quite drunk.
"Nader is correct."
Nader is correct. I never said he wasn't. All I did was point out that there's nothing I can do (nobody listens to dirty hippies, and anybody who is against violence against our enemies, no matter how counterproductive that violence is, is a dirty hippie), nothing the Democrats will do, nothing the Republicans want to do (and that what they are doing is gunning for imaginary targets), and that any potential Republicans will quite likely carry on and expand it.
Spoiler Alert: The answer do "Can you do better?" is "No".
Transparency its best!
President Obama gave the press the boot as he took CEO questions during a Business Roundtable event in Washington this morning.
“They probably got enough there to spin a story,” he said after finishing his remarks.
In Eisenhower's day, marginal tax rates (adjusted for inflation) for the lower to middle income tiers were as follows:
22% for $0 - 17,000
(10% today)
25% for $17,000 - 34,000
(15% today)
29% for $34,000 - 51,000
(15% today)
Are you advocating a return to 1952 marginal tax rates?
Let’s look at the contrast between the two perspectives of a divided America. One is that of the so-called “conservative” radical Right, aka the Republican Party. The other is the opposite alternative.
"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks." - Spencer Bachus (R) AL
”There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it....And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” Willard (R) the Loser
Now that’s the Right attitude.
In contrast we have:
On taxes:
Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.”
So they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
- Matthew 22:17-21
On wealth:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
- Mathew 6:24
On social justice for the poor:
“From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.”
What? Too liberal, too compassionate, and too commie?
Well then, there’s this radical view:
"All whose faith had drawn them together held everything in common: they would sell their property and possessions and make a general distribution as the need of each required."
(Acts 2:44-5)
Verily I say unto thee, if Jesus were to come to America, he would be called a godless commie by the “real Americans” of the FOX(R) cult.
"I bet someone that stupid pays next to zero in income taxes, while shilling for the most greedy Big Money elites."
Karl Marx
DD, missed you, hope you can join us next time.
"While a guest on a local Chicago radio show, Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) VP Jesse Sharkey was questioned over his recent participation in the Midwest Marxism Conference and refused to answer why he was there and what relationship the Chicago Teachers Union has with the conference and sponsoring organization, the International Socialists Organization. Sharkey, who was documented by Breitbart News attending the Marxist conference at Northwestern University last month, appeared caught off-guard and struggled to respond to the question."
Looks like some anonymous racist needs something to do between his Klan meetings. Calling liberals commies is all their feeble brains can come up with.
DD
If the shoe fits, wear it!
And your "Liberals are commies" shoe doesn't fit, no matter how much your cult indoctrination wants it to.
Try thinking for yourself, son. Do you still believe FOX (R)'s claim that Romney would beat Obama?
They were wrong, weren't they? Maybe, just maybe, they're wrong about other things. Well, to rational folks outside the cult, anyway.
People are waking up and leaving the radical Right. The GOP is losing support due to their crazy cult lies.
Public Policy Polling was ranked by Wall Street Journal as one of the top swing state pollsters in the country during the last Presidential election.
“Republicans not handling election results well”
PPP's first post election national poll finds that Republicans are taking the results pretty hard...and also declining in numbers.
49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found:
that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.
Some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure.
One reason that such a high percentage of Republicans are holding what could be seen as extreme views is that their numbers are declining. Our final poll before the election, which hit the final outcome almost on the head, found 39% of voters identifying themselves as Democrats and 37% as Republicans. Since the election we've seen a 5 point increase in Democratic identification to 44%, and a 5 point decrease in Republican identification to 32%.
If you open your eyes you'll see it's not the black and white world portrayed by the radical Right. Or you can remain a closed minded true believer. At least you're more entertaining that way, and always prove our claims about your indoctrination.
The greedy plutocrats can shill for themselves, since they own the corporate media, you know.
DD,
Looks you are in self denial. It's ok to come out of the closet now, your side won the election. The 53% who voted for President Obama aren't going to disown you, you wont get kicked out your Union so that means your job is secure. I'm pretty sure the OWS crowd will embrace with you with open arms as one of theirs!
What is it you have got against Communism any way? To each as they need from each as they have, no racism, no threat to the workers, business will be put in its place, corporations will lose their current freedom of speech, there will be a true separation of church and state, 100% free health care for all, no unemployment, no differences in classes of people, no 2nd Amendment, no crime, all will be equal, no hunger, there would be a control driven economy, vs the unfair capitalistic demand driven economy. What is your problem with the workers paradise we would have with a Communist economy?
Denial? Me? That's funny, coming from the one who doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism.
You see, one system as implemented, and like the Republican Party, suppresses voting and democracy.
That is but a sample of your denial of reality.
What do have against Constitutional regulation of commerce?
Chew on this, or deny it if your indoctrination requires it.
Since the election we've seen a 5 point increase in Democratic identification to 44%, and a 5 point decrease in Republican identification to 32%.
Want to deny that, too?
Dave,
Just think how much fun you would have at your job when you stop your denial and the "people" you agree with so much take over. The current inmates who you watch now, will be released under the new order cause after all, they were put there by a rich white greedy racists republican society. Image how much fun you will have with the new inmates, those rich republican greedy racists capitalists!
Woo buddy, I bet your hearts beating faster just thinking what you'll be free to do with your phallic shaped cattle prod to those who tried to destroy our democracy.
And think you will no longer have to live in fear of being found out what you really are. No more fear of being found out, you are in the majority, you wont have to fear being found out! Finally American has done what you said they should. They voted in their best interest.
Come on man, your side won, the rich are gonna get theirs, Obama is going to level the playing field, he's going to do what you have worked so hard for, dreamed of so long, the redistribution of wealth!
It must be a tough habit for you to brake this denial, but I'm sure as the next four years go by, you'll be more comfortable in your skin.
I'm really happy for you!
The sole nugget of truth: the rich are gonna get theirs
Just like they always have, and always will, thanks to useful idiots like...
But Dave, isn't your rich finally getting what they have always deserved been your long held hope?
All their wealth taxed away from them so they can suffer like you and others have under their unfair ability to grow wealth?
Think about the advances we can make as a society when the govt controls all the wealth of all the people. Think how wonderful it will be to have zero unemployment! All because your side won.
I with you on this DD, I've seen the light, all money wealth belongs to the government which is for and by the people. Just think, a class free society, that is color blind to race, has no fear of a person sexual preference, no hunger, no homeless, no unemployment, no longer depending on oil to provide our energy, an end to global warming.
And the best part Dave, is the republicans and the wealth and the corporatist will be brought down to your level and yuo will feel so much better as you watch suffer and beg and want, just like their victims have.
No longer will the rich be able to take from the poor, although no one has ever explained how that happens, I'm as happy as a communist at a socialist meeting!
"All their wealth taxed away from them so they can suffer like you and others have under their unfair ability to grow wealth?"
Come on, the current debate is about raising the rate for any income above $250,000 3%, back to what it was when Bill Clinton was in office. Back in the 50s, when their tax rate was around 90%, it's kind of funny there were still rich people, isn't it?
De_bill,
You need to look up Dr. Deans most recent quote about raising taxes, capitalist swine!
Yeah a 3% tax restoration is communism.
Post a Comment
<< Home