June 08, 2008

HousingPANIC would like to congratulate Barack Hussein Obama on winning the Presidency of the United States of America


(You get tomorrow's news today here at HP, so figured we'd skip forward a few months and just let you know how it's gonna be just a bit down the road...)

______


HP'ers, please join me in wishing President-elect Obama well after his landslide win tonight.

Even though we may disagree with some of his policies, the nation has overwhelmingly voted for a change, and change we will now have.

Also a big congratulations goes out to the voters for putting the past awful eight years and The Worst President Ever behind us, allowing for a re-introduction of the American brand to the world.

These are exciting and historic days for our nation, but oh, what a mess Obama and the overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Congress will have on their hands. Let's see if they're up to the task. And hey, they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?

180 comments:

Anonymous said...

and his subsequent announcement of the restoration of the Capital Gains tax to 28%, thereby causing a stampede of 4th quarter selling on Wall Street as investors dump stock to avoid the tax.
The result: Depression looms.

Mark said...

These are exciting and historic days for our nation, but oh, what a mess Obama and the overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Congress will have on their hands. Let's see if they're up to the task. And hey, they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?

What is coming:

1. Income rates at 70% plus
2, Doubling of capital gains tax
3, Massive bailout of home speculators and lenders
4. Draconian gun control and gun bans
5. Shutting down of any dissident voices through the "fairness doctrine"
6. Cut and run and appeasement of every islamic thug out there
7. Socialization of the health field
8. Socialization of the energy field
9. Shortages in the health field
9. Shortages in energy (and even higher prices)
10 Inflation at 8-10% (officially)

and...

The next Reagan...

W.C. Varones said...

Subsequent? He already announced it.

JBR said...

Hillary will now begin her strategy to ensure McCain wins this fall. The next president will inherit a *hitstorm from The Shrub and will almost assuredly be a 1 term president. Saint Hillary rides to her thrown in 2012. God help us all. If she helps Barack Hussein Obama win, it will be difficult to both unseat a sitting president for the party nomination, and convince a beat down American public to stay with a Democratic party President.

keith said...

Having the Dems so overwhelmingly take over worries me

Too bad the GOP didn't nominate a viable candidate this year

deepcgi said...

Mark:

Add to that...

11. Another large scale terrorist attack in the U.S. - (after we have pulled the troops out of Iraq).

deepcgi said...

Ron Paul was the only fiscal conservative. I'm going to write him in.

Your Jewish Master said...

Let's remember who the clipped-haired bitter women are going to vote for. Not Obama. Who will the union rank and file vote for? Not Obama. And the list will go on and on.
McCain may be in for a landslide victory. He may have an "R" next to his name, but most don't consider him a big conservative. This country is not liberal, let alone left-wing radical liberal. Obama doesn't stand a chance. McCain will make him look like a school kid.
Yes, this country will elect Grandpa Simpson for President!

Anonymous said...

How can you be so right on housing and so WRONG on Barack Hussein Obama?

Afterthought said...

People vote their identity, not their social class. Oswald Spengler said as much. Poor ignorant whites for whom the Democratic Party is basically designed will vote for McCain.

Intelligent multi-degreed whites like myself will vote for Obama even though we are better off in theory under Republicans.

And that's the big catch for all you die-hard Right-wingers. Why did your team suck so much? I see a lot of "Obama will fail" arguments... why did YOUR TEAM fail?!? Answer that!

Are you ready to commit seppuku if Obama does a good job? I hope you are!

The GOP is dead to me until they embrace Ron Paul.

Lost Cause said...

It's about time that the leadership caught up with the rest of the country, and the world. Not anything that most the country can deal with, because we have already been dealing with the new composition of the population for the last 20 years.

Anonymous said...

The fact that DIEBOLD is the maker of the machines that gather the votes , they can put whom ever the hell they want into that Oval Office. It's all rigged people.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who reads this blog cannot possibly believe that Obama will "cause" the upcoming Depression. Yes -- I'm pointing at you anon, mark et al. And interesting that rather that promote the republicans' version of change you stoke the fear card AGAIN. Is there any other play in your playbook? Sheesh.
charlottemom

NIKE said...

Obama will wipe the floor with Mr. Magoo in November and the Dems will enjoy large majorities in both Houses of Congress.

It must be embarrassing,.. er, no, humiliating to be a Republican nowadays as the Bush apologist lapdogs are scurrying like cucurachas
seeking a rock to crawl under.

How sweet it is you redneck cowards!

Anonymous said...

It is amazing to me that educated people some of who experienced the Carter administration would think that this man Mr. Obama is going to be good for this country. I truly hope he does win the upcoming election and that we all can see in short time what a mistake it was to elect him.

Donald said...

Nice try guys, but Barack Hussein Osama is not going to win. McCain will win in November and the very next day Hillary will unofficially enter the 2012 presidential election.

bay400 said...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364362,00.html

Does this frighten anyone?

History said...

"And hey, they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?"

Yeah, right. Whenever you hear a comment like that, rest assured that things are probably going to get a LOT worse. A return to the Carter years, economically, only much worse.

And I'm sure Barry will have a bank/homedebtor bailout bill as one of his first pieces of legislation...

Anonymous said...

It's just a change of image, Keith.

Are we going to see any real changes to the way Washington works and the continual encroachment of big government and the destruction of the Constitution? Is Obama going to do anything about repealing the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, John Warner Defense Authorization Act etc.. etc..? Homeland Security? ? ? ?

Nope, I didn't think so.

Enjoy the dog and pony show folks...

jbr said...

Oh, and if Hillary can't hijack the Obama campaign, I expect massive early retirements from Secret Service personnel prior to inauguration day.

Anonymous said...

zimbabwe

$10 Gas = $3500 Hummers said...

This is it?...These were the best they could find willing to run in America Huh?

What a joke...I would vote for my neighborhood ice cream truck driver before any of these yahoo's the parties sent out this year.

The only + is that a Clinton or Bush will not be in office...

Anonymous said...

The crowning achievment of the Baby Boomer Generation to place a Black, Arabic Candidate with secret black power/rage agenda in a position of reverse discrimination and white people paybacks. The real agenda of Obama is his church of 20 years, which was given over twenty thousand dollars by him just two years ago. White people do not understand black rage, but they are about to get a real taste. Read Obama's wife's thesis at Princeton for a wake up call. George Bush is a disaster but Obama will be an Obamination.

David said...

Frankly, I think Obama is going to have a tougher time than people realize. I have to admit that I got caught up in the initial euphoria but the possible Black Nationalist leanings combined with Reverend Wrong just makes me cringe. And I'm not alone ... a lot of 'typical white people' like myself feel the same way. Sorry, he's made too many racist blunders for me to feel comfortable with him. His overt racism wouldn't be acceptable if he was a white candidate now would it? I'm voting for the other Democrat --- McCain.

Anonymous said...

"And hey, they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?"

not exactly the standard I expect from folks who will be spending my money

Anonymous said...

A New Jersey Douchebag at Age 70

newyorksocialdiary.com — Recognize the guy? He's the CEO of Countrywide, everyone's favorite mortgage company. His ridiculous tan is actually real and permanent - the unfortunate result of WAY too many tanning salon visits. He's almost as freaky-looking as Michael Jackson. Here's another nice photo: http://www.ceosmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/angelo- mozilo.

Anonymous said...

What ever happened to your support of Ron Paul?

I never thought that you'd jump on any trendy bandwagon, especially the whole Obama craze.

Anonymous said...

Two Words: October Surprise - Google it!

Yoski said...

"...they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?"
I wouldn't bet the farm on that. They still got people like Dodd, Frank, Clinton, Schumer, etc.
They can fubar things beyond your wildest imaginations.

Owner Earnings said...

Using his middle name is a low blow. Keith, you are no better than a lying 6% realtor if you do that. He didn't choose his middle name.

Anonymous said...

And hey, they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?
-----------

Yeah, right...they can't.

Anonymous said...

No thanks.

Peter said...

Quote of the day candidate:
"Yun is the Little Orphan Annie of forecasters. He's always sure the sun will come out tomorrow"

from Newsweek:
http://tinyurl.com/5b9veu

Anonymous said...

The fact that you emphasize Barack's middle name is HUSSEIN is enough to get him defeated. One-liners and emotion are enough to sway public opinion. Americans will see HUSSEIN and think "foreigner," "militant," "Manchurian candidate," etc etc.

It's stupid, I know. But as George Carlin would say, think about how stupid the average person is. Then realize that half of population is even more stupid than that.

Obama will go down the same way Kerry did in 2004.

bearmaster said...

I don't like his politics at all, but I don't like McSame's or Hitlery's politics either.

One thing I will say for Obama, I have never read anything about him being a bully or having a hair-trigger temper like Billary or McSame. I don't want some lunatic's finger on the Big Red Button. I want somebody calm and keeps his head.

The prospect of his socialist agenda makes me cringe, and I don't know what the composition of Congress will be come November, let alone whether there will be sufficient political ideology to thwart the socialist agenda.

It almost makes me cry to think of what we could have had (Ron Paul, with limited government and a non-interventionist foreign policy).

If Laura Richardson easily gets reelected, that just convinces me that we collectively are getting the government we deserve.

Anonymous said...

I think Americans have enough sense not to elect this ultra liberal candidate. How in the world do you support this guy? Remember, not all CHANGE is for the better. What a jump from supporting Ron Paul to Obama.

Dogged American said...

12. Holocaust II, the sequel

Akubi said...

Yes, depression looms. The U.S. is so royally fucked anyone who thinks otherwise has their head up their ass.
Obama has the power to inspire and empower people to wake up and change.
Old Monkey McCain can do nothing more than babble about dehydrated babies from some old comic he jacked off into.

k.w. - Southern Ca. said...

If the Obama administration can make some change which benefits the country *as a whole*, and takes us at least one step forward (instead of several steps backward as the Bush Adminsitration has) I'll say he's doing a good job.

Talk is cheap, we'll just have to see.

I hate McCain and Obama! said...

Great! More Taxes. Yeah Im already raped enough by the republicrats so lets see what the demicans bring.

F em all vote Nader just to piss off the demicans!

Anonymous said...

We elect people because it would be historic? Liberalism really is a mental disorder.

Anonymous said...

voting for Nader if RP isn't on the ballot

Anonymous said...

You'll get your "change"... don't complain later...

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

The stock market is already crashing in case Obama is elected. As one poster mentioned, taxes will rocket on everyone, rich and poor, especailly capital gains. Glad I shorted the markets. To bad for those with pensions invested in the markets and anyone else long on the markets.

keith said...

I state his full name because that's what you do with presidents

Ronald Wilson Reagan
William Jefferson Clinton

etc etc etc

Also, I'm being a bit loose still, but if you want to flame Obama or McCain, you'll need a user name. Anon's could be one guy posting over and over. Plus you're gutless. Get on record so we can credit or mock you later

MadoneLemon said...

I rather have Bush 3 as in McCain than Karl Marx 2 as in Obama. Hey Nobama, as long as i earned it the right way, i want my whole american pie not a welfare goverment funded socialist pie.I don't feel guilty just like the college folks who have been indoctrinated by thier left wing professors to have that WHITE GUILT feeling at all times.

George L said...

Barrack or McCain it doesn't matter it's all the same shit. We won't bother voting this year or any after.voters don't have the power,people with money do.

Lost Cause said...

John Sidney McCain III...bwhahahaha!!!!!

Lost Cause said...

I think I am going to start selling Obama Shelters to a few of the right wing nuts around here.

HURRY! Get them while they last! Room for an 8 year supply of ammo and canned food!

Big Cheese said...

Intrade.com gives B.O. a 63% chance of winning vs McCain's 35%... almost 2 to 1 so barring any screw ups or upsets Obama will win. And we will become an Obamanation.

-BC

Bitterrenter said...

The walking brain stem republicans' biggest fear: having to pay to support their country.

So tell us, selfish conservative deadbeats, what has all he tax cutting of the past 30 years given you? Your infrastructure is rotting away, you and your dull progeny are saddled with student loan debt for the 30 years after college and your income has literally been stagnant since the late 70s. And you come here to bitch about housing being too expensive and the real estate industry is filled with greedy, dishonest hacks. Can't connect the dots, brainstems?

But still, you want to elect republicans because you think the big bad democrats are going to take your itty bitty paycheck and give it to those lazy people on welfare. Of course you're still convinced that 90% of the tax you pay goes to welfare. Total idiots, you are.

And really deepcgi, invoking the fear thing every single posting? Who was in power when the last terror attack happened here? And who ignored the warnings due to their arrogance? Can't guess? THE REPUBLICANS AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Of course the terror attack before that was under Bill Clinton and was carried out by a government-hating conservative who thought it would be a good idea to blow up a federal building. You walking brainstem conservatives are the biggest threat to the country.

I call you brainstems because you haven't developed the cognitive abilities one needs to be a true citizen in a modern society. Your minds only comprehend your own greedy sense of entitlement and your aversion to paying for the services you demand. You're like grunting animals shoving others away from the trough while you fill your collective faces with your share and that of several others.

Conservatives are like the guy who eats out with the group, orders the most expensive entree, has the most drinks and then at the end of the meal hides in the bathroom until everyone else pays the check.

Frank@Scottsdale-Sucks.com said...

This is scary.

For entrepreneurs like me it's not worth it to continue in business at Obama's proposed tax rates. Better to shut down for a while.

I'm already looking into setting up a Dubai corporation.

Atlas is about to shrug.

Anonymous said...

Here is more proof that race will be too large of an obstacle for Barack to overcome. Taken from a front page Yahoo article.

"I don't think we're ready for either one yet," said Doug Richardson, 62, a contractor from Latrobe. Obama "just hasn't impressed me," he said over midmorning coffee with a friend at Denny's. "His middle name bothers me a lot." That name is Hussein.

Anonymous said...

I have decent and thoughtful anti-obama post deleted by Keith on a regular basis.

I wonder how many others are experiencing that.

Mark said...

To Bitterrenter:

So tell us, selfish conservative deadbeats, what has all he tax cutting of the past 30 years given you? Your infrastructure is rotting away, you and your dull progeny are saddled with student loan debt for the 30 years after college and your income has literally been stagnant since the late 70s. And you come here to bitch about housing being too expensive and the real estate industry is filled with greedy, dishonest hacks. Can't connect the dots, brainstems?

Obviously - you have not studied the federal budget for 1 minute. Go google it. You will see that over 50% of the entire federal budget is for entitlement programs.

But here is a question I always as liberals, and I have YET to get a straight answer:

At point between 0% taxes and 100% taxes do you become a slave?

Looking forward to your answer.

Deb said...

Thank you bitterrenter for your cogent comments. Incredible how many people are afraid of Obama after all these years of Republicans completely RUINING the country.

Our children have spoken. They have rejected EVERY SINGLE THING the older folks have stood for--racism, sexism, homophobia, GREED, "looking out for #1," killing people because we think we're better than they are or we want they have (oil), etc., etc.

When I was a child marginal tax rates were up to 70%, rich people actually had to pay taxes on capital gains (yes, it's only rich people who HAVE capital gains, get real), one worker could support a family on one salary, everybody who worked had health benefits, and middle-class kids could afford to go to college without saddling themselves with bone-crushing debt.

What happened in one generation? Well, we elected right-wing fascists (including Bill Clinton) who kowtowed only to the ultra-rich and let everyone else go to hell.

And isn't hell sweet? Actually most people find our current hell (constant war and a rotting economy featuring no job security whatsoever) very uncomfortable.

How anybody can possibly think we don't need a BIG ASS CHANGE in this country after 28 years of pursuing "greed is good" and "imperialists R us" policies that have done such obscene damage to the nation and the world is truly beyond me.

Thank GOD our children have decided to overthrow us. I can only hope it is not too late for them to reverse some of our grievous errors.

This backlash against the 60s has got to end. Pot smoking and people screwing people they're not married to are NOT the biggest problems we've got. The kids know this. When will the grownups wake up and realize we have to take care of people, not corporations? We have to spend our money on HUMAN NEEDS, not making the rich richer or killing people who have done us no harm.

This is all such a no-brainer to me I can't fathom why it is not crystal clear to everyone. I guess greed and hate are really powerful filters, but it's time to remove them and see the light folks. We're all in this together and we have to take care of each other, yes the STRONG have to take care of the WEAK. Read your Bible, it's all in there.

Christopher said...

Information technology is increasing our capacity to see the world as it really is and not thru the blinders of the ignorant persons who still try to use fear to persuade their counterparts to "vote republican"
These assumpitions that gun laws would be Draconian or Socialized medicine doesen't work,need to be contested. There is no such thing as the second ammendment in the ECU and yet there are hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners all over europe who enjoy hunting, target shooting and others who cary fire arms for self defense.
As far as socialized health care , after having first hand experience with it the only conclusion is that it is better for mankind than the the free market system.Guess what folks, MD's in Italy , France and England etc. drive BMW's And Mercedes Benze. They are well compensated and their service is optimal.Then there is the urban myth about US companies paying the highest corporate taxes in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Has any one really checked to see what IKEA or Ericson or Nokia or Olivetti , Nestle etc. pay their respective govertnments in tax.
Your in for a shock.
Please do your homework so we can turn away from the politics of fear towards a discussion of what is the best course of policy for all Americans and not just the priviliged few.

Hassan El Taliq said...

Obama will win. He is our candidate you stupid americans.

You will have Sharia law in your country just like in the UK. You cannot stop us.

Anonymous said...

So tell us, selfish conservative deadbeats, what has all he tax cutting of the past 30 years given you? Your infrastructure is rotting away, you and your dull progeny are saddled with student loan debt for the 30 years after college and your income has literally been stagnant since the late 70s. And you come here to bitch about housing being too expensive and the real estate industry is filled with greedy, dishonest hacks. Can't connect the dots, brainstems?

Probably the most accurate post in this entire thread. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Like Barack, you must smoke crack.

Anonymous said...

No way I will vote for Obama...or McCain. Nor will I be content with the outcome of these so-called 'elections'.

A democrat now would be complete economic insanity, but then again he has been 'pre-ordained' by the media and the elites...so I guess they want to create the illusion that things will 'change'.

Enjoy the illusion Keith. I will be writing in for Dr Ron Paul, then I will start to really hoard goods, gold and ammo.

Rza said...

I've talked to soo many people that are still not sure in many parts of this country. Obama's victory is not a sure thing because, as has been pointed out, most people just don't get it. The average person is an idiot who focuses on the issues that don't matter or just can't see an issue from all sides.

LibVet said...

I'm with bitterrenter.

And I would like to add that if those who predict a McCain win are NOT betting, they are lying.

steely damn said...

The Brotha of change will have to deal with millions collecting "change" in hats and cups when the Democrat Congress rams through all the tax increases they're talking about. I predict a rather short honeymoon period for our first black President. He may be a nice and personable guy, but the assholes in Congress combined with his inexperience and leftist views will only make an already bad economic situation worse.

If he goes down the wealth transfer/confiscation route, I truly believe we will see citizens revolt in many areas of the U.S., and all of the bad, police-state sh_t the lefties predicted for GWB's administration will see the light of day under BHO.

bank dick said...

Here is what Colbert had to say about Obama's chances and the election this fall:

http://tinyurl.com/5whcpp

As usual, he nails it - LOL!

Anonymous said...

And hey, they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?

_______

Oh heck...SURE they can! Barack Obama might surround himself with people who are even more arrogant and cocksure than the Bushies, and who have even less restraint.

Barack will almost surely be faced with depression-level economic conditions, and I don't think he or his appointees will have any idea how to make it better, other than to make empty promises and give whatever handouts they can.

Anonymous said...

I hate the lies and generalities spun by people (like Mark on 6/8/08 11:03). Is the possible outlawing of AK47's considered Draconian? The gun control laws will not change drastically, just enough to curb some of the insanity going on as far as school shootings where people can't possibly defend themselves against a maniac holding a rapid fire weapon! (ohhh, so Draconian!)

Also. there will be no massive bailouts of speculators (That has already happened with the tax cuts for the rich, remember!). As for lenders, I don't believe Obama will support the Federal Reserve as we now know it. Bernanke and others will be gone at first possible chance. I also believe that economic reports will be much more accurate unlike what is dished out to us currently. By the way the reports we get now disguise the fact that inflation is already 8 percent "officially", but at least Obama will take the veil off of it and turn it around!

Socialization of health field and energy field? Well anything is better than the status quo we have now. However, I don't think it will be socialization. Instead, it will mean every person in America has an opportunity to buy "affordable" health care coverage which will reduce the need for welfare and medicaid coverage. It will be subsidized somewhat but to a much lesser extent to the taxpayers than what is going on now. The medical field will not lose doctors and others unless it is due to the fact that there will less paper work to fill out! (Aww, that is so awful!) You can choose your own doctor and your doctor will still be able to afford his Mercedes!

As for oil prices, I think this is every Wall Street investor and mortgage company's (that has been allowed to run amuk during the Bush Administration) chance to capitalize on the little time they have left before Bush leaves office to make obscene profits before their time is up. Bush is doing nothing to stop the gas prices from climbing except to say "drill in Anwar". He is allowing this bubble to happen because when Democrats can change America's energy policies, they will stop the raping of America".

And my memory of Ronald Reagan was interest rates through the roof (10 to 12%) and inflation at 10 % and unemployment through the roof as well. Boy what a savior he was! It was hell trying to get thru college those years and small businesses were crumbling every where. Anybody else out there remember the Reagan years! It seems like alot of people have forgotten the facts and want to make him this hero. If you can be specific I would like to hear true factual things about him, good or bad!.

Anonymous said...

Obama may bring change but what KIND of change exactly? The only positive thing about him is that he's not a career politician which brings us to the flip side of him not having enough experience to lead. I want to vote for him but I'm just too afraid of his socialist ideals.

And in the end I think Mccain will be the winner. Why? Because most people in this country are still "closet racists." They may say they'll vote for him in the polls but behind the voting curtain their true colors will show. Angry older white women (ex-Hilary supporters) will move to Mccain. Hispanics will determine the final outcome. They are a HUGE group and will vote how their community leaders advise them. Even though they usually vote Democrat, not sure if they can overcome the race thing either; lots of tension betweens black and Hispanics over the years.

-AF

Anonymous said...

Mark said..."These are exciting and historic days for our nation, but oh, what a mess Obama and the overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Congress will have on their hands. Let's see if they're up to the task. And hey, they can't possibly screw it up worse than the Republicans did. Right?"

Well put. I see from the poll on this site that 68% of the conservative people here will vote for Obama. Unchanged from last week.

Bush II has killed the Libertarian/ Conservative Republican party.

Kenduffelsniffenspotzen

Anonymous said...

Anonymous deepcgi said...
Mark:

Add to that...

11. Another large scale terrorist attack in the U.S. - (after we have pulled the troops out of Iraq).

????? Why??? Bush has met all of Osama Bin Laden's demands.

Nobama said...

Bitterrenter said:
So tell us, selfish conservative deadbeats, what has all he tax cutting of the past 30 years given you? Your infrastructure is rotting away, you and your dull progeny are saddled with student loan debt for the 30 years after college and your income has literally been stagnant since the late 70s. And you come here to bitch about housing being too expensive and the real estate industry is filled with greedy, dishonest hacks. Can't connect the dots, brainstems?

-----------------------------------
Tax cuts have nothing to do with rotting infrastructure and stagnant wages, you moron.

The mental midgetry of demorats like Bitterrenter is astounding to me.

They fail to take personal responsibility; think government is the solution to every problem rather than the problem itself; and fail to understand that is is capitalism that built this country and the socialists like Bitterrenter that will destroy it.

Idiot.

Anonymous said...

Anon June 08, 2008 11:58 PM:

Just because you can't figure out how to audit voting machines doesn't mean other people can't.

It must be easier to make crap up than to think about how you would solve such a problem.

Anonymous said...

rza:
"I've talked to soo many people that are still not sure in many parts of this country....The average person is an idiot...."

Do you spend all day in contact with people around the country? Have you collected data from thousands, hundreds, dozens, or a single-digit number of people?

Are you sure you know who is the idiot?

Anonymous said...

Partisan politics aside, if history is any guide, than you can assured of Obama winning the presidency.

Why? Because historically, when the economy sours, the ruling party is ALWAYS ousted in favor of the other party. Happened to Carter in 1980. Happened to Bush 1.0 in 1992. And it will happen to the Repubs in 2008.

Take a look at the senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial elections that have occured in the past 2 years. The repub power base has been steadily losing even in areas where they normally carry strength.

This is not an attack on repubs. There are many republicans I respect. But unfortunately, many are realizing too late that they did not distance themselves from the Shrub when necessary. Now they are going down with that ship.

Not only do I think Obama will win, but I think it will be one of the biggest landslide victories since Reagan. And I don't say this because I am an Obamanite thinking he is the second coming. It's simply voter sway and the fact that the other candidate does not energize his base. Kerry lost because he was not looked favorably upon by his base.

McCain is not well liked by the republican power base because they consider him to liberal. Given the choice, many right wing voters will simply not vote while many democratic voters will come out in droves.

Anyway, that's my prediction. Could be right, could be wrong. We'll know in November.

Anonymous said...

Good article on McCain right here:

Make No Mistake: McCain’s a Neocon

But Obama isn't much better people. Do you people even know that his advisors like Zbigniew Brezinski are beholden to the elite? Do you even know that Obama slipped away from his media entourage on Friday by pretending to board a plane for Chicago but then skipped off to a meeting with the Bilderberg Group in Chantilly, Virginia? You can read about it here:

Obama Shakes Media Entourage Loose to Attend Secret Bilderberg Meeting

Funny how the corporate media doesn't mention a word about this secretive meeting of very high powered people even though chief editors and CEOs attended the event...

Don't you people get it? Obama, Clinton and McCain are all bought and paid for by the same interests. This election is a dog and pony show and look at the huge amount of energy we waste discussing the lesser of two evils in this controlled two-party paradigm.

Anonymous said...

Afterthought said...
People vote their identity, not their social class. Oswald Spengler said as much. Poor ignorant whites for whom the Democratic Party is basically designed will vote for McCain.

Intelligent multi-degreed whites like myself will vote for Obama even though we are better off in theory under Republicans.


===========================

Then Oswald Spengler is an idiot. In 2000 and 2004, people without a high school diploma voted for Gore and Kerry.

Obama will however get 99.9% of the idiot vote, that is a given.

gutless and lazy suggests interracial marriage said...

In all seriousness, Obama will help unite the country in every sense of the word.

As a product of an interacial marriage, he will show that racism is an unfounded fear. At last, from his leadership, America will be much more willing to blend together, even on the most intimate family level. Hopefully, white women will feel much more comfortable and free to date and marry black men, and likewise for white men and black ladies!

Let the next generation of America all be Halle Berry's and Derek Jeters!!

Anonymous said...

What happened in one generation? Well, we elected right-wing fascists (including Bill Clinton) who kowtowed only to the ultra-rich and let everyone else go to hell.

===========

Damn dude how far to the left do you have to be to think Bill Clinton is right wing?

gutless and lazy suggests trying interracial said...

It's already happening. Even conservatives are having happy interracial marriages :

http://tinyurl.com/69hb45

this is your destiny Pukes!!!!

Veronica Lodge said...

RE: Barack Hussein Obama winning the Presidency of the United States of America.

The last two presidential elections were obviously rigged. After all of the funny business in Florida during the presidential election of 2000, where Al Gore was obviously the winner, the supreme court appointed George Bush as president of the United States. Then came 9/11, the Patriot Act and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The 2004 George Bush victory over fellow Skull and Bonesman John Kerry is another example of bogus elections. Before this "election" we already knew that the Bush Crime Syndicate had lied to us about Sadam Hussein having ties to al-Qaeda and his possessing weapons of mass destruction. By then, the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were in full operation, the US constitution was being shredded and in spite of this, we "elected" George Bush to a second term.

In the next few months, all of the skeletons in Barack Hussein Obama's closet will be exposed. His Muslim background, drug use, lies, inexperience and continued affiliation with black radicals should be enough to put John McCain into the White House without the need for any of the usual election fraud.

As always, the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex will be calling the shots, no matter which stooge becomes president.

V.L.

devestment said...

I don’t care who wins. This is a carbon copy of 1991. After the Reagan years trickle down big spending economy stimulus package, H W Bush got an unbalanced budget, collapsing home prices, high unemployment, and 9% interest to buy property.

Whoever gets The Presidency is inheriting a mess and will not look good.

democraatus said...

Obama immediately did a full blow kneebend performance with AIPAC.

Meet your new president: nothing's gonna change for the big boys.

Bought and paid for.... but it is the only change the US is gonna get.

tom-the-impaler said...

Guys, what part of Obama's 20 year association with the church of "We Hate Whitey" aren't you guys noticing? Anyone who's ever been to a church knows that you don't warm the pews for 20 years unless you fervently support their ideology. Short version, as a white man, I am not comfortable voting for a man who openly detests me for simple racial reasons. If it doesn't worry you then you should take a good look at the guy in the mirror. That having been said, I hate the neo-socialist John McCain almost as much. The American people are truly without good choices this year.

christopher said...

I took marks advice and googled " federal budget" and as usual there were dozens of sites with conflicting statistics. Believe what you will. However the thing that struck me most about marks challenge was his implying that entitlements to the hard working, or unemployed or handicapped or lazy american people is a bad thing.
Acording to one reference 54% of our tax dollars will go into defense spending.So mark , you believe that bringing democracy to Iraq is more important than providing for our elderly or helping a poor family make it to the end of the month,or granting health care to the children of those less fortunate then yourself. You appear to be heartless and cruel and yes, selfish.
Unfortunatly,I realized a long time ago that the expression "for not the grace of god, there go I",falls on deaf ears with people who think like you do.Prove me wrong and show me how much you care about the others.

Bitterrenter said...

Mark,

Entitlement outlays are OUR money getting back to us. What your kind bitches about is welfare, the money you assume is taken from you and given to all those undeserving poor people. Money taken from your check and returned to you in the form of Medicare and Social Security doesn't count. But good try.

So do you think government should exist to only return tax money to corporations? To fund wars? Isn't it nice that we get some back? If you have elderly relatives you'll appreciate that money coming back to them instead of paying their last 150K medical bill yourself.

Government SHOULD return the money it collects to the people who sent it originally.

As for welfare, at its PEAK it accounted for 7% of the budget, most of it to feed and house poor women and children. Since welfare "reform" that percentage is about half.

But you probably think the money is better spent in Iraq killing civilians. Your kind never seems to mind spending money to kill people, just to feed them. Like my republican relatives with their "Freedom isn't Free" camo magnetic ribbons.

bitterrenter said...

You don't become a slave until it gets to 100%.

Anonymous said...

Pending home sales up 6%.

SOME CRASH

IDIOTS

Anonymous said...

I've talked to soo many people that are still not sure in many parts of this country. Obama's victory is not a sure thing because, as has been pointed out, most people just don't get it. The average person is an idiot who focuses on the issues that don't matter or just can't see an issue from all sides.

==============

Oh I see. Anyone who doesn't believe in Marxism is an idiot. Got it.

Anonymous said...

Be careful what you wish for.

Anonymous said...

12. Astronomical increase in visas and citizenship for African and balck Caribbean citizens, and yearly transfer of trillions of US taxpayer money to that continent. It's on the 20 points of Obama's Trinity Church. They don't want to let the Hispanics be the largest minority.

Anonymous said...

Prepare well because the second Carter is coming. God saves us all!

Anonymous said...

If word got out about John McCain's father's role in the coverup of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty his campaign would be over in a flash. Of course, it would also radically change the influence Israel has over US foreign policy. Don't expect the media to raise this information though...

But hey, there's nothing stopping informed citizens from listening to the truth themselves:

USS Liberty Survivor Talks About the Attack by Israel on the USS Liberty


When are people going to learn that the media can not be trusted at all?

Anonymous said...

Keith your guy has dirty ties to your hated Angelo M. of CFC!

Hypocrisy on Obama’s stance on subprime connections



These borrowers, known internally as “friends of Angelo” or FoA, include two former CEOs of Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of Countrywide’s mortgages, say people familiar with the matter.

One was James Johnson, a longtime Democratic Party power and an adviser to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign, who this past week was named to a panel that is vetting running-mate possibilities for the presumed nominee. …

There is nothing illegal about a mortgage firm treating some borrowers better than others. But if Fannie Mae officials received special treatment, that could cause a political problem for the government-sponsored, shareholder-owned company.

...

Now they’ve put the selection of his running mate in the hands of someone who got sweetheart deals from Countrywide while running Fannie Mae, which seems a lot more problematic than being a paid flack for the lender.

Anonymous said...

I have decent and thoughtful anti-obama post deleted by Keith on a regular basis.

I wonder how many others are experiencing that.


Me too. We can't express a contrary view against Obama because Keith is deleting everything. I'm about to leave the blog for good.

Anonymous said...

McCain was the first candidate to defend Net Neutrality long time ago, and he has a long record to back him up.

Anonymous said...

As a person who is independent politically, I feel I can make an unbiased observation.

The contributors who express extreme "conservative" views and/or disdain for the concept that we could have Barrack Obama as a president almost always have serious issues with putting together coherent sentences and arguments.

The education and intelligence gap that's displayed between some of these paranoid hacks and the more open minded folks who argue for the public good, is startling.

Wil said...

Okay, so let's say Obama wins. How does that benefit America? In reading the comments, the general tone seems to be, "Bush F**ked over the country for eight years, so now we'll let Obama have a go at it".

I'm reminded of a quote that is especially appropriate given the situation.

"Whether the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone, it always ends badly for the pitcher".

America is a pitcher, and yes Bush was a stone that hit us. But Obama is just a different stone, and this time, America is hitting the stone. None of the problems we, as a nation, will be fixed.

We will still have a mortgage crisis, but now we will have Congress and the President stumbling over themselves to see who can get the most money from the taxpayers to bail out those who should instead be held responsible for their decisions.

We will still have entire political movements across the globe that will hate us and wish us harm.

We will still have a crisis where our dependence on foreign oil is slowly destroying our standard of living.

We will still have invaders from the south who are going to erode the values and standard of living of those who work hard for their small piece of a dream, and again the government will be falling over themselves to open the door.

So what will be different?

Obama will be more honest than Bush might have been. He will not even try to hide the fact that white people need to be punished for the sin of contributing to his makeup. Even though Obama is as white as he is black, he has made it clear that there is no consideration of him being simply an American; No, he has to deny half of his heritage and call himself African-American. He will also very openly wage war against the middle and upper classes (with the exception of himself and his cronies) for the "benefit" of the poor.

Obama will change the image of America. No longer will the enemies of America have to second-guess whether or not to attack. They will have confirmation that America, much like historical France, will greet them with a cool beer and a warm hug.

Obama will reverse years of progress in race relations, gender relations, class relations, and just about every other kind of relations that Americans might have.

Mc Cain may not be better, and I don't believe him to be, but that doesn't mean that I, like many of the commenters on this board, have to sit by with my eyes closed, and my thumb in my anus, giggling that the reign of America's mad King George II is finally over.

Instead of celebrating Obama's potential election, we should be looking hard in the mirror in shame to try to find out how we got here. Instead of glee and joy, we should hang our head's in shame and mourning.

I'm sorry America, but I only had one vote, and there were no good choices. I wish only that I could have done more, but there are too many others out there who yell much and listen little. For what we are about to face, I accept my part of the blame, and I look upon you, measuring your part of responsibility.

Steve_O said...

The Berlin Wall falls and socialism is declared a total failure, except by the Democrats in the US! They still read the myths about FDR and believe that he saved us from capitalism.

The Founding Fathers must be totally disgusted with the under-educated Americans turned out by our robotic government sponsored schools.

Face it, Republicans and Democrats are now both believers in Big Government and more power to them to carry out their mis-guided concepts. Warfare / Welfare, both mean more of our money.

notanonanymo said...

theres my name.

Obama's top people + CFC = no chance for change!

Hypocrisy on Obama’s stance on subprime connections

According to some news sources, however, Obama has little problem working with people connected to Countrywide, either. Jim Johnson, who also has connections to the Fannie Mae scandal, accepted over $2 million in real-estate loans from Countrywide. The rates he received on those loans were significantly lower than market value at the time:

Anonymous said...

georg w bush
how many people know w stands for Waker?

How many times anyone has heard George Walker Bush?

Does anyone recognize Geoge Walker Bush is President Bush?

How subtle is the bias in emphasyzing HUSSEIN in Senator Obama's name? Do we know Senator Hillary Clinton's middle name or initial?

Reality said...

Bitterenter,

"So tell us, selfish conservative deadbeats, what has all he tax cutting of the past 30 years given you?"

JFK's (a Democrat) tax cut gave us prosperity; the taxation-regulation, wars, and inflationary policies of LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter (two Democrats and one Republican) gave us misery; the tax cuts of Reagan brought us once again prosperity; the tax raise of Bush Sr (a Republican) brought economic difficulties. Clinton is a mixed bag: one who talked about an interventionist big government but never delivered much in that regard; Bush Jr is exactly the opposite: one who talked about fiscally responsible small government but expanded the government the most among all presidents since LBJ.

If you want to talk about actually getting your social programs, GWB is your guy: his prescription drug program is the biggest entitlement expansion since LBJ's war on poverty. As for me, I'd rather have Clinton, a talker who never delivers on social program, than someone like GWB who talks about small government but never delivers either :-)

The problem with big government, whether through
(a) social programs or
(b) through external war or
(c) through internal police state (that would be extensive documentation and tracking of residents, through various "status": immigration status, medical status, job status, income status, etc. etc.) is that:

(1) any one of the three routes would lead to big government with enormous amount of paper pushers and jack-booted thugs, many of not all of whom would be bad news for lovers of personal liberty. When your medicine and retirement are entirely dependent on official verification of your status, you'd be much more careful what you write on a blog;

(2) Paper pushers and jackboots take a lot of money to maintain. They are guaranteed to be less efficient than free-market solutions.

"Your infrastructure is rotting away,"

That's the natural result of relying on taxation for infrastructure building. Resources are being spent on building bridges to nowhere instead of where toll collection would pay for the bridge bond. Then you have $14 billion spent on digging a giant hole in the ground using politically connected companies and drunk union workers, now literally falling apart and killing motorists who use those tunnels.

"you and your dull progeny are saddled with student loan debt for the 30 years after college"

That's the natural result of government intervention to subsidize college education. The "free" government money bids up the price of college education. Classic supply and demand in action. That's the reason why education and healthcare are the two sectors with the fastest price increase in the last few decades: government subsidy bidding up prices for everyone else.

"and your income has literally been stagnant since the late 70s."

Guess why? All the taxation and inflation (money printing) in order to support those subisdies. Intended recipients are not the only ones that subsidy programs have to support. They are not even the biggest beneficiaries. For every dollar spent on welfare, only 13 cents go to the intended recipients; the rest is paid out to the bureacrats. That's 87 cents out of every dollar! On top of that, since most government spending money nowadays is borrowed, the bankers get an even bigger slice! How is that even possible? doesn't 87% and 13% add up to the whole pie? But here's what you are missing: if the banker's interest rate is 6%, and the government has no chance of ever fully paying off the debt (like ours currently, borrowing to pay interest), the $1 the government spends this year results in 6 cents every single year to perpetuity! After 15 years of this kind of borrowing, there is enough interest payment in one year to add up to another $1! That's why the entire current federal income tax receipt add up to just about the same amount as the interest payment on the federal debt! Think about that for a moment. The federal government is effectively robbing citizens at gun point to pay bankers! The bulk of actual federal spending money is actually from new borrowing! Do you start to see the vision of hamster on a ferris wheel? :-)

Of course that's all by design, as both income tax legislation and the FED fiat money came into being in 1913. In fact the scheme of government borrowing in the name of "people" then using the gun barrel (taxation) to collect interest on behalf of the bankers long pre-dated the US.

With that in mind, have you ever thought the possibility that big governments are set up to "fail"? When the government fails to deliver certain service to the public, the government apologists will clamor for more taxation and borrowing . . . more money for bankers either way! That's when you realize, the big governemnt is not set up to serve the people, but set up to serve the bankers . . . in that regard, it's a resounding success!

Anonymous said...

Ladies, you better order your burkas before they run out.

Reality said...

"As far as socialized health care , after having first hand experience with it the only conclusion is that it is better for mankind than the the free market system.Guess what folks, MD's in Italy , France and England etc. drive BMW's And Mercedes Benze."

I never thought that the yard stick for successful medical system is having MD's driving luxury cars. What happened to selfless doctors charging helpless people only enough to keep the doctors themselves alive? Isn't that the whole premise behind government subsidy to medicine, that doctors would not charge more as a result, contrary to normal expection in any normal market supply-and-demand?

Since most medical needs take place late in a person's life, and the US has vast subsidy programs for those over 65 (and others who need it earlier also qualify for Medicare and Medicaid), what's in US today is certainly not free market medicine . . . otherwise, it wouldn't have gone up in price so rapidly in the past couple decades, compared to the inflation rate of the rest of the economy.

The crucial difference between European subsidy and the US subsidy is actually the government "HMO" element: European system has a cost per "quality life year" cap whereas Medicare doesn't. For example, if a cancer treatment is going to cost $200,000 and expected to extend the patient's life by two years, the cost per "quality life year" is $100,000. If the cap is $50k, the patient doesn't get it. It was proposed as a practice by HMO's in the US, one that received much condemnation. Medicare currently doesn't use analysis like that, but eventually may have to; that's what happens in "public" and "free" healthcare: you are just a number, and a liability for the system when you need it. At least in the private system, you can decide if you want to save up early in your life so you can have a higher cap when your life is eventually on the line, but in the "public" and "free" system your life's worth is decided by some bureacrats running the government budget.

Reality said...

"We have to spend our money on HUMAN NEEDS, not making the rich richer or killing people who have done us no harm. This is all such a no-brainer to me I can't fathom why it is not crystal clear to everyone."

Because any time you put something like "We" and "spend our money" in one sentence, you end up making the rich richer. There is no "We" or "our money" unless you get the voluntary consent of every single person that is in the "we." Otherwise, you end up borrowing in the name of "We" (national/sovereign debt) and then having to collect interest payment at gun point on behalf of the super rich bankers. It hardly matters what that borrowed money get spent on. It's the interest payment, one that will never end in our current system, that will make the rich richer. The entire federal income tax receipt is currently comparable to the interest payment on the national debt! Think about that. All the blood and toil money collected at gun point from workers and savers who have gainful income go to bankers! Practically all the government programs are run on newly borrowed money! Just so that the debt can never be paid off. It's not hard to see, at this point, any government program that costs anything is just another chain in our enslavement down the road.

Anonymous said...

You wanna bet? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Anonymous said...

Afterthought - Bush failed economically because, although elected as a conservative, he decided that he wanted to follow left wing, spend like a druken sailor policies. The idea that you can recover from socialist policies by electing a socialist is insane. BTW - I am a multi-degreed white person (3 degrees, 152 IQ) and I'm voting for McCain. I will hold my nose, but I'm voting for him (better than a socialist with racist and terrorist buddies).

Anonymous said...

Obviously - you have not studied the federal budget for 1 minute. Go google it. You will see that over 50% of the entire federal budget is for entitlement programs.

-----------------------------

dude, you expect liberals to bother with anything like facts?

I know it has probably been a long time since bitter renter received a paycheck but if one were to just think about the line item deductions from their paychecks that are entitlement programs they would realize that it totals about 50% of the federal tax they have withheld. but then again, like I said, libs don't bother with details like facts.

Anonymous said...

And that's the big catch for all you die-hard Right-wingers. Why did your team suck so much? I see a lot of "Obama will fail" arguments... why did YOUR TEAM fail?!? Answer that!

----------------------------

it was our turn to fail and take the blame. If you haven't figured it out yet, left and right are incompetent. one side gets into office, voters realize how bad they are and then vote the other side in. rinse. repeat.

what is truely sad is the obama may not win due to race. Also, some people will come to realize that obama is a tax and redistribute lefty and they will vote against him.

Have you heard how he now wants to spend "windfall profit" taxes on oil companies? Not new non-oil energy efforts. he wants to give it to americans who are struggling to pay their energy bills..... He is trying to buy the uneducated, redneck vote that hillary had locked up.

Anonymous said...

Intrade.com gives B.O. a 63% chance of winning vs McCain's 35%... almost 2 to 1 so barring any screw ups or upsets Obama will win. And we will become an Obamanation.

-----------------------------------

but didn't they show hillary winning the nomination about a year ago?

Anonymous said...

Intrade.com gives B.O. a 63% chance of winning vs McCain's 35%... almost 2 to 1 so barring any screw ups or upsets Obama will win. And we will become an Obamanation.
------------------------------

ha ha, no it is even better! they showed hillary winning the nomination as little as 2 months ago!

Anonymous said...

This is it?...These were the best they could find willing to run in America Huh?

What a joke...I would vote for my neighborhood ice cream truck driver before any of these yahoo's the parties sent out this year.

The only + is that a Clinton or Bush will not be in office...
--------------------------------

i agree completely.

one funny thing is that the dems may nominated the one candidate who might not be able to beat McLoser.

i hate to say it but hillary was right, she is more electable than obama.

Anonymous said...

and his subsequent announcement of the restoration of the Capital Gains tax to 28%, thereby causing a stampede of 4th quarter selling on Wall Street as investors dump stock to avoid the tax.
The result: Depression looms.
-----------------------------

long term.

short term is he will say "gee look, tax revenues are up up up we can spend spend spend"

Anonymous said...

reality says. never thought that the yard stick for successful medical system is having MD's driving luxury cars.
Thanks for replying.
The assertion that European MD'S earn enough money to afford themselves a few luxuries was meant as a provocation to get a response from someone who thinks like you.In simple terms the fees that European Doctors and Hospitals can charge are strictly regulated by government agencies. This way a threee day stay in a european hospital for persons exihibiting suspicious respiratory symptoms will cost $2,000 as opposed to the $40,000
bill a friend of mine recently received when his wife had to be recovered in a Northern NJ hospital for what turned out to be a moderate case of the Flu. Lucky for him , he had a good health care plan and they raped his insurance company and it did not drive him into bankrupsy or forclosure. Surely you must be aware that this scenario happens every day here in the USA.No, socialized health care is not perfect but it is better for all of the people than what we offer here.
I quote you:
"public" and "free" healthcare: you are just a number, and a liability for the system when you need it."
Are you implying that countries that offer socialized medicine where there is absolutly no profit incentive would prefer to see their sick people die because they are a burden on society.I find it sad that you should believe and write such things. Don't be so cynical.
There are people of character and compassion out there. Its not all about money.
God bless.

bitterrenter said...

Hey Anon 7:59,

I'll bet little old bitterrenter here has more wealth than you do. I'd guarantee it. In fact, the wealthiest people are always liberals. Just look at Buffet.

Most of your walking brainstems spend your paychecks keeping up with the Joneses. That's why you're always trying to get out of paying your bills to live in this country.

The new name for the conservative ideology is Deadbeat.

PS. Roosevelt did save us from capitalism. If not for his socialist policies, the poor would have risen up and killed the rich, a scenario I believe would have been more effective and that would have had longer lasting effects.

Andrew Goodman said...

It's funny and sad how desperate the Republicans are - you can tell by the viciousness and fury (and often overt racism) of their comments.

Obama will destroy McCain in the general.

Anyone who can't stand what Bush has done to this country and yet still votes for McCain is either a masochist or an idiot.

Anonymous said...

"Intelligent multi-degreed whites like myself will vote for Obama even though we are better off in theory under Republicans."

Wow, either a living, breathing contradiction or a complete douchebag void of any sense of humility or intelligence.

I'm going with the latter.

Reality said...

"This way a threee day stay in a european hospital for persons exihibiting suspicious respiratory symptoms will cost $2,000 as opposed to the $40,000"

No, an average three-day stay in hospital doesn't cost $40k, not even in the US, not yet anyway.

"Are you implying that countries that offer socialized medicine where there is absolutly no profit incentive would prefer to see their sick people die because they are a burden on society.I find it sad that you should believe and write such things. Don't be so cynical."

In case you you do not know, public education in some of those countries already indoctrinate their kids with the idea that living beyond a certain age is taking up an unfairly large share of natural resources (http://mises.org/story/2997)

The very first major country in the world that implemented national healthcare for all also practiced eugenics and euthanasia for the chronically ill, the elderly and the disabled (Nazi Germany); the second group countries that introduced national healthcare for all, did the same thing (the soviet bloc); the third group of countries don't even care to put up the money for a quick euthanasia, but instead prefer a fancy term called "cap on quality of life year cost"; in other words, the government bureacrat will tell you if a body part of yours is worth fixing . . . or just leave you to die slowly of untreated "natural cause."

I'm not being cynical at all; when one side in a trade has all the cards, and the other side has no alternative (as in a government-run system), reality is quite macabre.

"There are people of character and compassion out there. Its not all about money."

So tell me why your friend got the $40k bill? If the men and women in white scrubs can't even be counted on as being compassionate, what makes you think bureacrats wearing business suits would be more compassionate? The strongest card the consumer has is Alternative. When that is removed, the consumer has no power, and is completely at the mercy of the provider.

Reality said...

Bitterenter,

"the wealthiest people are always liberals."

The explanation is quite obvious: big government policies benefit the extreme rich. Bankers own the government since 1913. With out never ending and ever expanding national debt by design, bankers will just get a bigger and bigger share of the GDP through interest payment. It's actually very similar to the bankers' encouragement of housing price going into the stratosphere: when you buy a house that is 5x your income with a 6% loan, you just signed away 30% of your income as interest payment. Government is just a tool for collecting resources from the public to pay the bankers; and there is nothing liberal (as in promoting personal liberty and freedom) about government robbing citizens at gun point to pay the ultra rich (top 0.001% of the population).


"Roosevelt did save us from capitalism. If not for his socialist policies, the poor would have risen up and killed the rich,"

Nah, the standard Roosevelt-apologist line was that he saved capitalism. Anyway, he did not. Contrary to your claim, the country in 1932 actually wanted someone very different from what FDR turned out to be. FDR's 1932 election promise consisted of:

1. Smaller government (I'm not making this up; check it out yourself);

2. Undoing Hoover's public programs and commissions (again, check out his 1932 campaign);

3. Preserve gold standard;

Of course, FDR did exactly the opposite of all that he promised. His policies exacerbated the economic condition, and turned what had been a severe recession into a depression that did not end until Truman dismantled after WWII the various commissions that had been created by FDR and Hoover.

An impoverished America under FDR was first put through political regimentation: on the public works job application line, the top questions was whether you were a Democrat or a Republican; if the former you may get a job, if the latter, get lost! A condition that was not all that disimilar to the state-party politics then in practice in Germany and Soviet Union. The of course the big Second World Bankers' War of the 20th Century. Bankers and manunition manufacturers made out like bandits in the war, while the ordinary citizens were denied the basic necessities of life: everything from gasoline to sugar was rationed, and there were no new car production; the young men got drafted into slavery to die and to pillage upon civilians of other countries. You are coreect, that's not Capitalism; the closest -ism for that kind of statecraft is probably Feudalism.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Reality!

AuntieEdna said...

People, people, people...when will you realize that the red state/blue state, left wing/right wing, liberal/conservative bullshit is one of the reasons we've allowed our government to fail us so spectacularly?

Aren't you all more intelligent than to allow your political and world views to be so tritely summed up?

Why isn't there more discourse about common sense and sanity as they relate to our government? There is so much focus put on what the crazy, socialist liberals did vs. what the ignorant nascaar loving conservatives did that you don't realize that this is the game the big boys want you to play.

In my opinion, most of our elected officials (with the exception of Ron Paul) are mostly the same. They're all indebted to their corporate masters (or dedicated to preserving the elite status they were born into) in one way or another.

And, while we stand around arguing about what the red state did to the blue state....Obama and McCain sneak off to meet with Bush, Clinton and all the other masters of the universe.

Bitterrenter said...

It's a bit specious for conservatives and their friends to surmise as to what life would be like without Roosevelt's (or others') socialist policies. How can you say when we've had the programs for generations now? Well, let me tell you how things would look.

Widespread education would still be a dream as it is in other savagely capitalist places like South America. The middle class would hardly exist without social programs (and unions). If all families were totally repssonsible for their aged relatives' healthcare bills and support (in the absence of SS or Medicare), they would be heavily burdened with huge bills that would have a ripple effect on future generations.

Without those programs, the average last healthcare bill of $100K would have been borne by the person's relatives leaving them much less wealth to inherit. Having to support one's elderly relatives would have been another huge burden.

However, by pooling resources we were able to do both much cheaper. Sort of like riding the bus. Sure, we could all take limos but the bus gets the job done cheaper and we all save.

All you conservatives here have benefited so much from social programs that you have no yardstick with which to measure if they didn't exist. You can only dream of a no-tax Utopia that would look more like hell had socialism not been a part of this country's history.

I don't expect any of you to understand this, you're minds aren't developed or capable of such thought. Well, not until YOU need something and then you turn into huge socialists. Have a handicapped kid, your parents fall desperately ill and you'll push to the front of the line bleating for help from society, which, most often is the government.

nomoreanonforme said...

Here is Obama defending his guy's sweatheart deal from Country Wide Fin.

I am not vetting my VP Search Committee for their mortgages.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

Education and literacy both existed long before Saint Roosevelt. Here's a blog by Karl Denninger, who is actually quite left leaning: http://market-ticker.denninger.net/2008/06/fraudulent-education-friday.html See if you can pass the Kansas 8th grade test in 1894. Yes, that's 1894; 8th graders were expected to have a very good grasp of compound interest rate and current discount value on bonds of future maturity. I doubt the average college graduate today can answer those questions correctly. 1894 was 40 years, or a generation or two before FDR.

Much of South America actually have been run as socialist countries during the second half of 20th century. Argetina and Brazil had higher living standards than Europe before 1950. Their high taxation and high social welfare program were what did them in. Chile was the major exception in that it had a free market reform and responsible fiscal policy program analogous what Germany had in the 50's.

Without FDR's programs, a healthcare bill won't be $100k to begin with. Before FDR's debasement of currency, $100k would be worth 5000 ounces of gold, or over $4 million today! People saved and took care of their healthcare bills for thousands of years before FDR. FDR's policies only served to make people unable to plan for or take care of themselves at advanced age, in three ways:

(1) The drastic and ongoing debasement of currency makes long-term saving exceedingly difficult for the average person. When gold was money, everyone could save gold. With fiat paper money, people have to chase one bubble after another just to keep up with inflation. Many, if not most, people are not adroit enough; their loss, Wall Street Banksters' gain.

(2) Public healthcare subsidies drive up the price of healthcare, so anyone who has to pay out of his or her own pocket find the medical bill much much higher than it would have been, growing much faster than even the already high general inflation rate.

(3) People don't care about their kids any more because they do not have to count on their kids for their own retirment. So responsible parenting is out of the window.

The total net result of FDR's policies is exactly what we see in the baby boomer generation: spendthrifts who neither save nor even care about their own finances because they know the government ponzi scam is out to help them . . . nor do they care about their kids because it's no skin off their nose if their kids turn out to be completely incompetent. On the contrary, raising good kids would take effort, and so would deny oneself immediate gratification in favor of savings; when such endeavors are not rewarded like they usually are in a natural system, we end up with irresponsible behavior.

Reality said...

"Have a handicapped kid, your parents fall desperately ill and you'll push to the front of the line bleating for help from society, which, most often is the government."

Especially if the government tax away what resources that people would have donated to charity. Charity organizations did not exist in the USSR; There's less private charity in Europe than in the US. People in taxachussets, one of the most "liberal" and highest taxed states, donate less than the national average.

Reality said...

"However, by pooling resources we were able to do both much cheaper. Sort of like riding the bus. Sure, we could all take limos but the bus gets the job done cheaper and we all save."

Bus companies existed long before the government got into the business. In fact, there are still private bus companies, and they are usually profitable and sustainable, unlike the public ones that cry to the government for more funding every year.

If something has economy of scale, why do you think government has to be involved? Did the government invent the Ford production line method? Did the government invent US Steel? Did the government invent railroad? In fact, the railroads that received government subsidy all went bankrupt in the late 19th century, usually due to corruption and overexpansion. . . while the major private railroad survived because they were lean and efficient.

Reality said...

"If all families were totally repssonsible for their aged relatives' healthcare bills and support (in the absence of SS or Medicare), they would be heavily burdened with huge bills that would have a ripple effect on future generations."

That must be why homosapiens did not evolve from apes until 1937 (SS), and written history did not start unti 1965 (Medicare).

Saint Roosevelt brought fire down to humanity from Mount Olympus, and Saint Johnson parted the Red Sea (or was that the red ink bottle?)

Bitterrenter said...

Poor Reality thinks that Roosevelt caused the Depression despite the fact that republicans ran the country unilaterally from the late 1890s until the Depression was firmly underway.

You probably also believe that the Clinton good times were due to Reagan, forgetting about those pesky, recessionary Bush the first years. You're one of those brainstems who think Carter created inflation despite the crushing inflation and recessions we had under Nixon and Ford, both who preceded Carter.

Unreality types like to shift the timeframes backwards, forwards and sideways to deflect the failure that is inherent in conservative economic policy. Otherwise the credit for perceived prosperity under Reagan goes to Carter.

what was that? No special interests? said...

Oh yes, it's going to be so great when Obama swoops in and fixes everything. He's so special and different, so above the normal politics and corruption.

Hang on a minute. What's this? Keith! say it isn't so!

"In a presidential campaign where the subprime mortgage crisis and high corporate salaries figure to be staples of debate, Johnson is now at risk of becoming a political liability for Obama, who’s trying to sell anxious voters on an economic message that calls for stricter financial industry regulation and ridding Washington of special favors and tax breaks for wealthy CEOs.

On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Johnson received at least $7 million worth of home loans from Countrywide through an informal program for friends of company CEO Angelo Mozilo that offered rates below the market average. At least four of the loans were issued while Johnson was employed either as the CEO or an outside consultant for Fannie Mae."

he's the man said...

In 2006, five companies where Johnson served on compensation committees came under fire from Institutional Shareholders Services and The Corporate Library, two corporate compensation research companies, for accounting errors and failing to sufficiently tie executive payment to performance.

Maybe Obama will get us out of Iraq. Um, maybe he will get us health care? Refrain from nominating supreme court judges who will overturn Roe vs. Wade? Let's just say I have my doubts.

Anonymous said...

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance." james madison

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild


its amazing how many of you people still don't get it. it doesn't matter who becomes president. whoever has control of our money supply, controls us. get it through your heads. a change of men in the white house means absolutely nothing. its a big game. its a lie. there is no difference in parties. man can't you people see that? how much longer shall the sheep be so blind?

Reality said...

"The middle class would hardly exist without social programs (and unions)."

The former USSR and red China must had a thriving middleclass . . . NOT!

Middle class is not just an income level designation. Middle class connotates economic and political independence . . . as in "Bourgeoise"
and "Petit Bourgeoise." Labor union members who depend on collective threat of violence to extort a living standard higher than non-union members doing similar work is by definition not middle class at all.

Reality said...

Middle class existed in America long before FDR. Thomas Jefferson's independent farmers and tradesmen were middle class in the economy that existed back then. That's a full century and half before FDR. If anything, FDR's policies, and other socialist programs after him, have led to a drastic erosion of American middle class, by making them poor and dependent on the state. See this article titled "The Fed's War on the Middle Class":

http://mises.org/story/2983

Big Cheese said...

Intrade.com gives B.O. a 63% chance of winning vs McCain's 35%... almost 2 to 1 so barring any screw ups or upsets Obama will win. And we will become an Obamanation.
------------------------------

ha ha, no it is even better! they showed hillary winning the nomination as little as 2 months ago!

-------
So anonopuss if you feel McCain will win put your money where your mouth is and win some cash. That is the whole point of a prediction market. If people put their best guess forward (backed by cash) then collectively the group can predict the outcome. As you pointed out Hillary's 'stock' crashed over the last year and if you analyze things she did really blow her campaign during the last 6-8 months. So that's why I said unless Obama screws the pooch between now and November he will win.

-BC

History said...

From the New York Times yesterday:

"In his most pointed and sustained attack on Mr. McCain’s economic agenda, Mr. Obama said that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of President Bush’s faltering economic policies. And he highlighted his own proposals to aid economically beleaguered Americans: tax cuts for middle-income families and retirees, a $50 billion economic stimulus package, expansion of unemployment benefits, and relief for homeowners facing foreclosure."

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, Keith - enjoy Obama's housing bailout!

Anonymous said...

Reality ,
Thank you for introducing me to the Ludvig von Mises Institute.I read some articles by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.,Murray N. Rothbard and a few others.I especially enjoyed the interview with Thomas Di Lorenzo on CSPAN.It is only after having digested this information that it occured to me why your response to my opinions seem so bizzare. You are confused.
The underlying premise of these authors in a nutshell is: Socialism=Communism=Totalitarinism=end of democracy.
Without going into a big philosophical debate let me just leave you with one example of what I mean.
Finland is a republic with a democraticly elected parliament. It is a capitalist country. You may recall that Nokia is the largest manufacturer of cell phones on the planet.Every citizen and non citizen residents alike have free access to the health care system.(of course nothing is free. It is paid for by tax Euro's)But, the unemployed systems analyst ,or cashier for that matter has the same right to recieve a heart transplant as the CEO of Nokia.
Its really not as bad as you think. And another thing,get this nonsense about "cap on quality of life year cost";out of your head , which incidently is exclusivly an american phenominon regarding VETERANS’ REHABILITATION LEGISLATION. If you can find any reference to this in ECU guidelines please pass it on. This would surely make me change my mind as I find the concept utterly outrageous.

Bitterrenter said...

You can only speculate as to what life would be like without the socialist policies ushered in by Roosevelt due to the extreme pain the people were in. Since Reality and the rest of you brainstems benefited greatly from those policies, you are hardly in a position to criticize. It's like saying we would have been better off without indoor plumbing or fluoridation. You have no way of knowing or experiencing the alternative.

And calling him Saint Roosevelt is about right. The people gave him FOUR terms as they also gave democrats 81% control of Congress during that time. Gee, was that a coincidence? The poor republicans were so freaked out they had to create an amendment to stop some future popular liberal from becoming president for life.

I've yet to meet one republican who hasn't taken full advantage of every government program they can get their hands on. I'm quite certain Reality's parents get SS and Medicare, His kids may even go to subsidized public schools. If he's like many republicans, if his aged relatives need long term care the family hides the old folks' assets so they can pretend to be poor and qualify for Medicaid to pay for it. I know LOTS of republicans that did that. It's quite the scam for the brainstems.

It also reminds me of a brainstem I worked with who HATED government programs but when his home was flooded was right there in line for government cheese and free diapers for his brainstem progeny. Another reaganite brainstem acquaintance of mine fell ill with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and had no problem going on disability.

Anecdotes, yes, but they illustrate the hypocrisy of those who claim to be self-sufficient and HATE the idea of helping their fellow man until they themselves are in need.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

"Poor Reality thinks that Roosevelt caused the Depression despite the fact that republicans ran the country unilaterally from the late 1890s until the Depression was firmly underway."

Please take off your partisan blinds for a moment. Where did you see me praising Hoover? I never did. If you want to talk about Republican historical sins, IMHO, Republican Party actually had the worst president in US history; it's not GWB, but Lincoln, the corrupt tyrant who put political opponents in jail in violation of constitutional herbes corpus rights and waged an unconstitutional war that killed the most number of Americans ever in any war while turning the republic into an empire. OTOH, 1890's was two recessions before 1929. Woodrow Wilson was not Republican (just to correct your ignorant claim, I'm not even all that concerned with his party affiliation otherwise), and he was the president who made took the most important steps towards socialism after Lincoln and before FDR: he signed both Federal Reserve Act and Internal Revenue Act into law, with a few complicit congressional leaders, while the congress was in Christmas season shortened sessions.

The massive credit expansion by the FED in the 1920's was the fundamental reason behind the economic contraction starting in 1929. Hoover's big government programs exacerbated the situation. FDR ran a campaign criticizing Hoover's wasteful government and needless interventionism. However, after he was elected, he proceeded to expand Hoover's bad policies by orders magnitude. That's what turned a severe credit cycle recession into the Great Depression, which lasted till after WWII, when Truman finally quietly dismantled the various government commissions set up by FDR and Hoover. Yes, Truman was a Democrat, something for your to gloat about.

"You probably also believe that the Clinton good times were due to Reagan, forgetting about those pesky, recessionary Bush the first years."

No, you are wrong. I did not forget GHWB's sin in raising taxes and excerbate economic down turn, and mentioned that in the posts that you were replying to. So stop the strawman tactic.

"You're one of those brainstems who think Carter created inflation despite the crushing inflation and recessions we had under Nixon and Ford, both who preceded Carter."

Which part of my previous comment on the four bad presidents, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter (two Democrat and one Republican elected presidents and one unelected Republican) did you miss? Time for your to engage your frontal lobe, instead of indulging in partisan knee-jerk reactions. Does knee-jerk reaction even require brainstem?

"Unreality types like to shift the timeframes backwards, forwards and sideways to deflect the failure that is inherent in conservative economic policy. Otherwise the credit for perceived prosperity under Reagan goes to Carter."

I actually did give Carter credit for:
(1) appointing Volker to the FED;
(2) giving up on the Iran misadventure after the desert air crash by the special forces.
However, the rest of Carter's policies were abysmal.

In any case, stop think the two parties as good vs. evil. Both are usually evil and more than happy to take away your liberties. . . with only a few sprinkling of good policies from time to time to give the economy a little breathing room.

Reality said...

Anon 1:56,

You are quite welcome on the mises.org link.

"The underlying premise of these authors in a nutshell is: Socialism=Communism=Totalitarinism=end of democracy."

There is a fundamental truism in that line of logic, as the Nobel Prize winning Federick Hayek wrote almost three quarter a century ago in the book "The Road to Serfdom" Government intervention in market place inevitably leads to inefficiency and invites people who game the system for their own benfit. Take for example the mortgage financing debacle: how can any state-lover refuse a policy of government agencies like FNM and FRE securitizing mortgage so as to help low-income families get into houses . . . the unintended consequences of course would include:

(1) Cheap mortgage driving house prices sky high;

(2) Fraudsters game the system engaging in transactions for the sake of cash outs;

(3) Banks willing to lend to anyone because their back side is covered by the government agencies;

(4) So long as the frauds were covered up by rising prices, the rich bankers took home enormous bonuses because the high interest rates on performing subprime and Alt-A's translated into huge profit for banks; the moment the risky bets are shown as what they really are, worthless papers, it's the taxpayers and dollar holders' duty to bail out the banks, never mind that billions of dollars had been handed out as bonuses only a few short months ago.

Here is a illustrated version of The Road to Serfdom:

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

" the unemployed systems analyst ,or cashier for that matter has the same right to recieve a heart transplant as the CEO of Nokia."

Only in the dream world of a typical socialist Utopia, with all due respect, my friend. Where would Finish government get the hearts for the transplants? Did they solve the zeno-organ growth surface protein problem? or do they have a hot line to the Chinese death row? In reality, the unemployed analyst and the cashier can take a number and wait, whereas the Nokia boss would be able to buy a heat from China and fly to the US for the transplant.

Ironicly, China also has universal heathcare. The communist bosses get similar privilege as the Nokia boss . . . the livelihood of the unemployed analyst and cashier get just a little harder: those with a bad hearts will likely wait till their deaths just like their Finish counterparts . . . whereas those who have good hearts and too much independent political thinking may find themselves rounded up for involuntary heart donations so that the communist bosses and the big money from abroad like the hypothetical Nokia boss may find a type match.

Government intervention can't make what's in short supply, like good donor hearts and good surgeons, to magicly become so economicly abundant that there is no price necessary (like the air that we breathe). Of course some kind of cost cap would have to be in place eventually in one form or another, lest some chronic alcoholic wants a new liver every year.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bitterrenter, I wonder why none of your hero Democrats in Congress want to back Kucinich on Bush's impeachment resolution.

Poor Kucinich is out there alone, while types like Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Edwards, Kennedy, etc, want nothing to do with it. Bush's approval rating is under 30%.

So go ahead Bitterrenter, spin this one out or just plain ignore it. Nevermind that they all voted with Bush to invade Iraq, and the only reason Obama didn't follow was because he wasn't in the Senate that day.

Reality said...

Bitterenter,

"You have no way of knowing or experiencing the alternative."

By your logic anyone who was born as a slave on a plantation should have praised the slave owner. You may lack the historical knowledge, but there are very good historical records on the economic growth rate, and how rapidly standards of living were improving in the 19th century and early 20 century in the US vs. the sluggish rate of economic improvement of the second half of 20th century to now.

"And calling him Saint Roosevelt is about right. The people gave him FOUR terms as they also gave democrats 81% control of Congress during that time."

FDR won 57% of popular votes in 1932, lower than Reagan's 1984 victory. More importantly, his platform called for: sharp cutbacks in federal expenditure and adherence to the gold standard. That's what people were voting for. Democrat victory in subsequent elections had much to do with machine politics as the New Deal dramaticly handed public jobs to registered Democrats. The Nazis in Germany and Communists in Russia also had overwhelming "approval ratings" after they integrated the party into the state organ.

"I'm quite certain Reality's parents get SS and Medicare, His kids may even go to subsidized public schools. If he's like many republicans, if his aged relatives need long term care the family hides the old folks' assets so they can pretend to be poor and qualify for Medicaid to pay for it."

Are you sure? My parents do not even live in this country and do not qualify for SS or Medicare, and my kid is too young to go to any school. The only old folks I know of in the family qualifying for Medicare are life-long Democrats, and yes they are giving money away in order to qualify for government assistance. The recipients of those gifts are Democrats, too; I'm a generation removed so not on the list; nor would I want any of that "cheat money." On the other hand, that kind of gaming the system behavior is not surprising.

Hey, you just commented on three things that you were certain of, and none of them prove true! Just your assertion that Wilson was Republican, and that FDR was saint. Man, you are ignorant, full of yourself, and assume way too much.

"Anecdotes, yes, but they illustrate the hypocrisy of those who claim to be self-sufficient and HATE the idea of helping their fellow man until they themselves are in need."

That's patent nonsense. I donate to charity every year; thousands of dollars each year in the last few years. Being against collectivism does not equate to hating the idea of helping fellow man (and women). In fact, the wannabe socialists usually prove themselves the stingiest in voluntary charity giving. Not surprising because by extraplating from their selfish selves, they don't believe anyone would voluntarily help another fellow man or woman. They just want to rob other people at gun point!

Reality said...

"until they themselves are in need."

BTW, the "need," or needy, would be much less if not for the depredation by the socialist state. People used to be able to save for their own old age, medicine . . . heck even children's education and getting help from children in return at old age. With the fiat money and social wellfare state, people can no longer do any of that on their own as their resources are taxed away. Where do you think the resources for all the fancy government boondongles and wars came from? It's resources taken away from people in the name of caring for their parents and children, but instead pilfered by the middlemen, the government!

If there's charity that professes to help the poor, the elderly, and the children; then it spends 87% o the money it collects on its own staffs and parties. Would you still donate to such a "charity"? The mafia used to have to plant bombs in stores and houses to coerce people to continue "donating" to that kind of "charities."

Reality said...

"I've yet to meet one republican who hasn't taken full advantage of every government program they can get their hands on."

I'm not a Repubican . . . and where I live, Democrat to Republican ratio is like 5-to-1, so I don't even know that many Republicans personally. OTOH, if you are held up in a street robbery, if the robber gives you your wallet back after taking your money out of it, you don't have to refuse the wallet in order to validate your objection to being robbed.

The individual would have had much more resources to care for their parents and their children's education if he had kept all his income instead of having 1/3-1/2 taxed away to support the bureacracy and wasteful foreign wars in addition to taking care of elderly and children

bitterrenter said...

Sorry, conservatism is evil. Democrats tend to be more liberal, republicans more conservative.

Selfishness, greed and fear are the worst instincts in humans, they're all nurtured and exploited by conservatives and are the basis for their ideology.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

"Sorry, conservatism is evil. Democrats tend to be more liberal, republicans more conservative."

Democrats are not more liberal. They are left-wing statists. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled at what much of what left-wing statists have been advocating in the last 75 years. The term Liberal should mean the defense and advancement of individual freedom and liberty. Robbing the average men at gun point to enrich the super wealthy and super powerful, as the state uses violence to enshrine their previleged positions and prevent competition, is not liberal.

"Selfishness, greed and fear are the worst instincts in humans,"

There is at least one instinct that is far worse: the propensity to use violence and coercion to achieve one's selfish and greedy goals. Collectivism panders to this exact instinct.

"they're all nurtured and exploited by conservatives and are the basis for their ideology."

Left-wing statists are every bit as prone to exploit selfishness, greed and fear as right-wing statists. Just look at Hilary's 3am ads, and the "they are going to destroy social security" scare every time the Clintons were campaigning. If anything, the very basis of FDR's "grand coalition" was selfishness, greed and fear, with a hefty dose of coercion. The very central argument usually presented by FDR defenders is the fear of the unknown about the alternative; unfortunately for them, while their own ignorance and past brainwashing may prevent them from knowing the alternative, the prosperous and rapidly improving America for 150 years before FDR was well recorded in historical primary documents . . . whereas the gradual downward spiral of the same America in the last 75 years is also well documented.

bitterrenter said...

Anonymous brainstem 10:28:

Not all democrats voted for the war. The ones who didn't were threatened because most of the brainstems that make up this country mistakenly thought Iraq was behind 9/11. The brainstems in the Bush admin had the dems by the balls. They lied about WMDs and got the people all whipped up. The dems had little choice but to support Bush and he knew it. Bush cynically used 9/11 and all those dead greedy republican bond traders who died in the towers to start a war he wanted to start even before 9/11.

As for impeachment, why bother when the head brainstem is leaving office soon? Democrats are intelligent enough to know not to tear the country apart, unlike the republicans who will destroy everything in their path to get ahead. That explains why the conservative movement is dead, over, extinct. No matter who wins in November, conservatism is down for the count.

Bitterrenter said...

Reality,

You may not have a use for American socialism yet but you'll use it as soon as you can. Wherever you parents live I'm sure they use that country's socialism. But the "reality" is that you already are using American socialism, every day when you do something as simple as turning on the faucet.

You verbose, convoluted posts aside, history doesn't support your version of things. Roosevelt was not some anomoly who the people thought was a conservative. As a non-native you really have no idea what our history is. Even if you are a native, you have no way of knowing what your version of life would be like since we've lived in a socialist-lite country since way before you were born.

The idea of the generous conservative is the biggest myth in our culture. Religious conservatives give slightly more than religious liberals but giving to one's church is hardly altruistic. However, when one looks at the non-religious, conservatives give the least of all. That's the bulk of the conservatives, the selfish fratboy con.

If you people were so generous you wouldn't be so dead set against contributing to support your country. I'm not even talking about "welfare", the boogeyman of conservatism, but simply the programs you people use and abuse. You think the world should provide you with services for free.

That's why you hate welfare so much- jealousy. Conservatives have this fantasy about not working and they see welfare recipients as already having achieved their goal. That's why conservatives are so dishonest and back-stabbing in their work lives. Their goal is to screw enough people out of their money so they can go golf and not have to work. Ironic that the people who espouse such affection for our system are the ones working the hardest to escape it, resorting to marginally legal and highly unethical things to get there.

Anonymous said...

bitterenter
stop wasting your time. You are casting pearls before swine.This reality person is incapable of comprehending.Its a right brain left brain thing.
Liberal from the latin lībĕro means to absolve, set free, emancipate, exonerate. It means to keep an open mind.You as a liberal have that ability.
Conservative again from the latin - con + servāre to watch over, guard (akin to servus slave, servīre to serve);
You will never in a million years convince this person of anything because by definition they are the slave of some one elses viewpoint incapable of being openminded enough to give your arguments the slightest bit of consideration.
Can't you see by the sheer quantity of facts and statistics they quote that this person is intelligent ,well read but ignorant in the ways of the world.
It was a noble effort but consider ending the discorse . Continuing will only serve to make you angry beasuse you are a person with deep feelings.Reality on the other hand is completly devoid of feelings so they will never get it.

Anonymous said...

Only in the dream world of a typical socialist Utopia, with all due respect, my friend. Where would Finish government get the hearts for the transplants?
There is socialized medicine throughout the ECU therefore there is a population base of 400,000,000 to draw from. Hearts , livers, kidneys, wings, drumsticks etc.
Your not very bright are you;?
"Did they solve the zeno-organ growth surface protein problem? or do they have a hot line to the Chinese death row?"
Never mind cynical you have got some serious issues to address.

God Bless

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

When I turn on my faucet, water comes from my own well. Once again you are assuming something you have no idea about.

As for whether you know more about our history or you do, let's just say that I knew far more even back when I received top mark for college-bound Advanced Placement test on US History almost two decades ago than you have ever managed to accummulate in your broken public school brainwashing. You didn't even know Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat, for crying out loud.

Here is a historical fact:

Many history-ignorant "liberals" defend FDR's policies on the ground that back then people were desperate, e.g. the 1929 per capita income in the US was only $750. What they did not know was of course that until FDR's gold ban, a dollar was worth about 1/20 Ozt of gold. That $750 translates to $32k! in today's dollars; whereas the current US per capita personal income is only $38k . . . that's hardly any increase over nearly 8 decades! Before the age of Hoover and FDR's government interventionism, going back 70 years from 1929 gives us around 1860, the eve of the Civil War. The per capita income of all population in the US was $128 (that of the free population was over $140), both were in 1/20 Ozt gold dollar terms, or roughly $5500 and $6000 in today's value. From $5500 to $32000 in 70 years despite the most devastating war on US soil in the first 5 of those 70 years, and numerous financial panics and "depressions" in the remainig 65, nearly 5000% increase! That's what American prosperity in the late 19th century and early 20th century was like. Compared to that, in the post Hoover-FDR years, we have 18% increase in nearly 80 years! Annualized, it's next nothing! Even the really old pre-industrial America of 1800-1840 (before the canals brought midwest farm products to NYC) had 1.3% annual per capita income growth rate; that tiny 1.3% per year improvement built up to over 60% improvement in 40 years. Now you see just how pathetic 18% improvement over 80 years really is. That's why young American no longer expect their own lives to be better than those of their parents.

Your generalization about conservative vs. "liberal" on charity giving is exactly the opposite of reality: Americans give more in private capacity than socialized Europeans do; people in red states give more as per cetage of their income than people in blue states.

BTW, stop the personal attacks and psychobabble, or I will just peg you as a hired shill for some super-wealthy person who is interested in perpetuating the central-banking and taxation schemes to rob from the middle class and enrich his fellow super-wealthy.

Reality said...

"Reality on the other hand is completly devoid of feelings so they will never get it."

I had enough "feelings" to donate over $6000 to private charities; how much did your "feelings" translate to? not counting mandatory tax payment.

In addition to compassion, I also have common sense, sound judgement and willingness to keep my mind open to realities on the ground. Being rhetorically compassionate alone is not enough for the good of humanity. When United Way (back in the early 90's) paid its boss quarter million dollars a year in salary, you and I as responsible donors should not donate to it regardless how flowery its literature presented itself as helper of the poor; when Churches lavished on its staff (like they did in the middle ages), you and I as responsible donors should refuse to donate just like Martin Luther did regardless what the establish Church propaganda said; likewise, when the government indulges itsef in all sorts wars and pork barrels, while enriching the wealthy bankers at the expense of the real working people, you and I as responsible participants in the society should be able to see through the flowery propaganda, and see what the real game is about, and demand an end to it. 80 years of grossly subpar growth, compared to the first 150 years of healthy economic growth of this same republic, is enough detour into socialism; enough is enough.

Reality said...

"There is socialized medicine throughout the ECU therefore there is a population base of 400,000,000 to draw from. Hearts , livers, kidneys, wings, drumsticks etc.
Your not very bright are you;?"

If I were not charitable, the last question would be a rather fitting one for yourself. There are not enough human hearts, livers and other organs or organ transplants, regardless how large the pool is, so long as the pool paticipation is voluntary. That's why millions of dollars on spent on researching artificial organs and zeno organ growth . . . and millions more are spent on smuggling organs from the third world, often results of murders (kidnapping/organ theft gangs), medical murders (doctors killing or refusing medicine to patients in hope of organ harvest) and state sanctioned murders (ridiculously over-use of death penalty for the sake of harvesting organs). How can there possibly be enough organs in a normal society for all transplant demands? old hearts and livers from old people dying of natural causes are useless . . . cars are getting safer . . . people are living longer and more transplant procedures are becoming possible . . . Like I said, if I were not charitable, I'd be asking you the last question that you presented to me quoted above.

"Never mind cynical you have got some serious issues to address."

What are you talking about? You never heard of the worldwide black market for human organs? Do a google search, and read up on it. Sometimes I think the "useful idiot" fellow-travellers of socialism really are decent people who just have no clue about how the world works . . . only to regret too late when their lives are harvested away by the insidious collectivists like what happened in Russia, China, Germany and Italy in the first half of 20th century.

Reality said...

"You may not have a use for American socialism yet but you'll use it as soon as you can. Wherever you parents live I'm sure they use that country's socialism."

No, they don't; thank goodness. Ha, something you are "sure" about is wrong yet again; not surprising. More importantly, I don't understand your fascination with picking on people being so deprived by the state to begin with that they have to get some of their fair share back just to make ends meet. Should the slave have been grateful that he was getting a meal from the master after a hard day's work in the master's cotton field? Just because he eats that meal doesn't mean he should support slavery and that any objection would be inconsistent or immoral.

Yes, in addition to the meal, the slave also received a general safety net from the master, as the plantation also has doctor etc. . . . all at a cost of course, as the master gets to live in the big mansion and get waited on by other slaves . . . but but, at least the slave doesn't have to take chances on his own in the scary real world outside the plantation! That's the exact sort of argument presented by the defenders of slavery! Somehow it's ironic that "liberals" are using more or less the same argument in defense of the socialism, substituting government officials for the slave master.
Shouldn't the slave have the right to choose whether he wants to trade his labor for a life under the "protective" plantation vs. becoming a free agent in the economy on his own? Giving the laborer that freedom to choose, isn't that what freedom and liberty is about? Shouldn't that pro-choice position be embraced real liberals?

Reality said...

"You may not have a use for American socialism yet but you'll use it as soon as you can. Wherever you parents live I'm sure they use that country's socialism."

No, they don't; thank goodness. Ha, something you are "sure" about is wrong yet again; not surprising. More importantly, I don't understand your fascination with picking on people being so deprived by the state to begin with that they have to get some of their fair share back just to make ends meet. Should the slave have been grateful that he was getting a meal from the master after a hard day's work in the master's cotton field? Just because he eats that meal doesn't mean he should support slavery and that any objection would be inconsistent or immoral.

Yes, in addition to the meal, the slave also received a general safety net from the master, as the plantation also has doctor etc. . . . all at a cost of course, as the master gets to live in the big mansion and get waited on by other slaves . . . but but, at least the slave doesn't have to take chances on his own in the scary real world outside the plantation! That's the exact sort of argument presented by the defenders of slavery! Somehow it's ironic that "liberals" are using more or less the same argument in defense of the socialism, substituting government officials for the slave master.
Shouldn't the slave have the right to choose whether he wants to trade his labor for a life under the "protective" plantation vs. becoming a free agent in the economy on his own? Giving the laborer that freedom to choose, isn't that what freedom and liberty is about? Shouldn't that pro-choice position be embraced real liberals?

Reality said...

"If you people were so generous you wouldn't be so dead set against contributing to support your country."

1. In the past year alone, I have voluntarily donated to veteran hospitals helping soldiers recover from injuries that they suffered in wars. Did you?

2. I donated to children's educational fund for soldiers who died overseas. Did you?

3. I donate hundreds of dollars to food banks every year; and over one thousand this past holiday season. Did you?

4. I donate thousands of dollars to other people's education (not related to me) every year. Do you?

You "liberals" talk about generosity. I am actually generous. I'm generous to my community; generous to individuals and institutions that will bring about a better America. What I'm not generous to are politicians who talk about "the country" all day yet do everything possible to loot the country/public for their own benefits through all sorts of needless foreign wars, pork barrels and bottomless pit domestic programs. Why? because if and when those wasteful programs are funded, even after I'm long gone from this world, our children and grand children will continue to pay for them. That means sweat and blood from working people getting pilfered for the benefit of the super-wealthy who have a direct line to the towers of power. That also means misallocation of resources that will condemn our erstwhile wonderful country to economic stagnation.

Reality said...

"Conservatives have this fantasy about not working"

Actually, working less hard and getting more in return is a goal for most if not all of humanity; that's why tools and machines were invented! Do you still want to chase after big animals in your loin cloth just to have your next meal? instead of, say, take a drive to the super market?

The key is how we can set up and keep a system that rewards people who come up with solutions that will enable most if not everyone to work less and/or get better returns . . . instead of rewarding people who work less and get better returns at other people's expense.

"That's why conservatives are so dishonest and back-stabbing in their work lives."

The socialist officialdom is the most back-stabbing place in the world . . . because everyone who has an IQ over 120 can understand that:

(1) There are two types of exchange: voluntary (free market) and involuntary (political redistribution)

(2) any accretive exchange between individuals would have already taken place voluntarily; that's what the price mechanism is for;

(3) redistribution through politics is a zero-sum or negative-sum game.

Out of the two dozen or so members of the Soviet Politburo in 1920, only one survived to see 1943, uncle Joe Stalin; excepting Lenin who died of gun shot injury from fellow socialists in revenge for backstabbing by Lenin's Bolshviks, all the rest were purged by Stalin. Stalin killed off most of family members, and most certainly anyone who came close to pinnacle power. One day in the early 1950's, he collapsed in the presence of four of his top lieutenants; not a single one of them called the doctor, and all four reached a tacit understanding that a recoverd Stalin could purge any one of them. So Stalin was left lying on the floor of his office for nearly a whole day to gradually expire. Talk about office back-stabbing :-) That's what happens when politics instead of free voluntary exchange rules a society.

"Their goal is to screw enough people out of their money so they can go golf and not have to work. Ironic that the people who espouse such affection for our system are the ones working the hardest to escape it, resorting to marginally legal and highly unethical things to get there."

Are you talking about the banking cabal? They mostly are Democrats and donate to Democrats. The ultra wealthy money men are usually in favor of social programs and expanded federal government. The reason is quite simple: They live off return on capital, in other words interest income. If they lend money to private entreprenuers or private companies, their money is at risk pending vagaries of business environment. However, if they lend money to the government, or have the government backstop any financial losses, their interest income is guaranteed! How does the government guarantee such returns for the ultra wealthy? Well, government tax the public and force the public to trade their labor for worthless pieces of green paper at gun point! That's why socialism is inevitably socialism for the rich!

If anyone with IQ over 120 is thinking, "hey, I can support socialism and game it to my own advantage too!" Well, there's just one problem, because political redistribution is zero-sum and negative-sum, people have to be bumped off when the land gets lean. See the fate of all those highly intelligent people on the soviet politburo metioned above.

That's why those who screw other people out of money and don't work, and don't want to risk their capital in return for such profits, routinely support big government programs! That's also the reason why the middle class standard of living in America have been stagnate for decades as the government expanded.

bitterrenter said...

Anon,

It's all a waste of time. Arguing on the internet is an escape and an opportunity to let brainstems know what pieces of shit they are.

I'm aware I'm not changing anyone.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

"Arguing on the internet is an escape and an opportunity to let brainstems know what pieces of shit they are."

Considering the complete ignorance and lack of insight that you have shown so far, you are free to describe yourself as "brainstem," although I'd be a little more charitable than that and chalk you up as a tragic statistic of the public brainwashing program.

If you have cogent argument to present, please do so; otherwise, hysterical personal attacks only shows "what pieces of shit" you are.

bitterrenter said...

Reality, anyone can be anything here on the Web. Of course you don't use any services, you and yours never tap into government money, you give lavishly to charity, etc etc etc. I've heard all of that from conservatives before. Oh, and you're a scholar of American History. Probably a world class figure skater too.

Just the other day I was having tea with Amelia Earhart and some friends when Bigfoot told us all a story about a conservative who never used any of the services his country offered, lived completely off the grid and was the most generous person on earth. I didn't buy it for a second but Santa and the Easter Bunny thought it sounded true.

The problem with your defense of savage capitalism is that we tried it for centuries before adopting a more humane system of contributory socialism. Savagery failed most people. All the most civilized, first world societies are socialistic.

You can theorize, pontificate and bombast your way through long-winded diatribe posts against Roosevelt, taxes, liberalism, et al, but the fact is that they all worked to create a first world, first rate culture that is now on the wane due to the abandonment of those principles by 30 years of conservative economic policies.

You can only theorize (incorrectly) about what ifs because what was, already happened due to liberal policies of the past.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

No, I'm not a figure skater; nor do I get paid for studying history. I just happen to know more about history, economics and human behavior than you have shown so far.

"The problem with your defense of savage capitalism is that we tried it for centuries before adopting a more humane system of contributory socialism."

A semblance of Free Capitalism only started to appear in the Netherlands and Britain in the 18th century. Capitalism was embraced by much of western Europe and North America only after Napoleonic War . . . then it gave way to nationalism (in the form of mercantilist imperialism) and socialism at the end of 19th century and early 20th century. The second half of 19th century saw the fastest worldwide economic growth ever witnessed in human history.

"Savagery failed most people."

What caused the shift to nationalism and socialism had nothing to do with "the savagery of capitalism," but everything to do with the savagery of socialists and nationalists trying to impose their will on other people through the use of violence. The former elites of Europe were not happy with the rise of the middle class due to the economic progress; they wanted their previlged social positions preserved and enhanced, and that's why the elite embraced socialism, which is really just the old feudalism with sugar coating. For example, Bismarck was the first one to try government pension programs for the elderly and poor . . . why? because then the people will become dependent on their territorial feudal lords again! Prussians were also the first ones to institute mandatory public education; why? because they wanted boys to be brainwashed early so they would later on be content with servitude to the state (as soldiers).

Socialism and its twin Nationalism were what made much of the savagery of early 20th century possible. For example, WWI would not have been possible in a free market capitalist economy; the governments would long have run out money before millions of people were sent to kill each other for years on end. The central banks were what made waging WWI and WWII possible; the central role of a central bank is to allow governments live beyond its means . . . by pillaging their territorial feudal serfs. Socialism == Feudalism.

"All the most civilized, first world societies are socialistic."

The poorest and most benighted countries are even more socialistic. What's even more remarkable: whenever a formerly civlized and prosperous society runs down the road of socialism, its living standards tanked shortly afterwards. For example: Argetina used to have higher standard of living than even Europe back in the 19th century and the first half of 20th century; then it tried socialist programs, and the rest of its history as we know is a third-world Argetina plagued by left-wing collectivists and right-wing collectivists. The US tried socialist government intervention under Hoover and FDR after 1929 stock market crash. So instead of a short "depression" like the previous one after the 1919-20 market crash, it turned into a prolonged "Great Depression." Things got so bad after 1937, FDR had to look for a foreign war to fight just to divert attentions from the high sustained domestic unemployment and declining standard of living at home. The US tried to expand socialism again under LBJ administration; the result was the end of Brentonwoods and the start of massive inflation. Nixon's "we are all Keynsians now" socialist interventions made the situation even worse for the following decade.

While Truman dismantled many of Hoover's and FDR's government boards and commissions that directly involved in the economy, and thereby brought the US out of the prolonged depression after WWII . . . the seeds of a longer term crisis, the long term pyramid schemes, were not removed. By the mid 1990's, the cumulative long term effect of 70 years of central banking and expanding central government (both were planks of the Communist Manifesto, by the way) had retarded real per capita income growth (as measured in the constant value of gold) to 0.25% annualized for the most recent 70 years, compared to the 2.5% annualized growth rate during the preceding 70 years (1860 to 1929). Young Americans no longer expected their future to be better than the lives of their parents; incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco were manifest signs of population discontent. That's why Greenspan turned on the monetary spigot in a last ditch attempt to paper over the losses that Americans had suffered after some 70 years of having the fruits of their labor socialised.

Of course, then a pure monetary expansion driven market mania eventually has to come to the end. That's when things happened as they did in 2000 and 2001. The Neocons, the same social engineers from the LBJ and Nixon years, embarked on the biggest social engineering / imperial building project yet: instead of blaming the monetary and fiscal policies that led to the 1970's stagflation, they postulated that stagflation was due to OPEC ripping us off. So off to the wars American boys and girls went, in an attempt to keep oil prices down. What we get is a replay of the 70's: gold, oil and food prices all sky rocket, just like the 70's, regardless where the specific commodity is produced domesticly or imported. Only this time, it will be a little worse than the 70's . . . a little more like Argentina!

Reality said...

"You can only theorize"

Only if you know nothing about history. The history is replete with examples of socialism ruins the economy, and make live miserable for every one. In the American experience, the A/B test started as early as when the Mayflower unloaded its passengers. They tried socialist communal living in the first year. The result was near total catastrophy: half the people died of starvation in the first winter. The next spring, the settlers divided the land into family plots, each responsible for their own plot. What followed was a colony that endured.

0.25% annualized per capita income growth rate in the 70 years after Hoover-FDR vs. 2.5% annualized rate in the previous 70 years speak louder than all your socialist imaginations (not even theories). If that 2.5% annualized rate had been kept in place for the last 80 years, the per capital income in the US should be $230,000 instead of the current measly $38,000.

bitterrenter said...

No civilization or society has survived without the cooperation of many to build together. Your warped perceptions of early settlers are not what ocurred in reality.

Using your logic, all corporations would work better if everyone worked independently. That's not how it works, never has been. No management would tolerate it either.

And again, you have no way of knowing how an every-man-for-himself society would work since we've never had one. As we've approached it in the past misery raises it's ugly head and the people support socialist policies. That explains why republicans have once again lost control of the COngress and soon, the White House.

Now go on, write a page telling me it was socialism the people are rejecting or perhaps that sun spots caused the failure of the conservative revolution.

You're not only a bad historian, you're a bad citizen.

Reality said...

"No civilization or society has survived without the cooperation of many to build together."

People can and do cooperate with each other without being coerced by a third party. In fact, the very foundation of free market economics is built on the understanding that specialization and cooperation are what lead to prosperity. Free market exchange is much better at discovering and promoting specialization and cooperation than government fiat can be.

"Your warped perceptions of early settlers are not what ocurred in reality. "

Go read the primary sources yourself on what happened.

"Using your logic, all corporations would work better if everyone worked independently. That's not how it works, never has been. No management would tolerate it either."

We are finally going somewhere :-) Using my logic, the corporation and the individual employee should each have the right to find a better alternative partner for cooperation (according to his/her/its own judgement). Using your logic however, the management should have the right to demand sacrifices from employees without the free consent of the employees! So long as the management deems it in the long term interest of the company collective. That is bona fide Fascism. Like I mentioned before, socialism is fundamentall Feudalistic and Fascistic, because that's what coerced "cooperation" is. Coerced cooperation is not cooperation, it's serfdom!

"And again, you have no way of knowing how an every-man-for-himself society would work since we've never had one."

We actually do live in an every-man-for-himself society; that's always the case and always will be: everyone has his/her own self interest. The only difference between our respective proposals is the question whether some individuals should have the special previlege of of coercing other people into doing things for the lord/master/leader's benefit without fair market compensation. The answer to that question is yes in feudalism, fascism, and socialism . . . whereas free market capitalism wants that kind of coercion minimized.

"As we've approached it in the past misery raises it's ugly head and the people support socialist policies. That explains why republicans have once again lost control of the COngress and soon, the White House."

Neocons are getting the boot because they pursued socialist policies both overseas (Iraq war to suppress oil price) and domesticly (entitlements and police surveillence society) while in power, leading to massive government debt, inflation and declining standards of living, just like any socialist programs inevitably lead to. Neocons were "liberals" in their youths, and transformed themselves from left-wing collectivists into right-wing collectivists in the past two decades.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

"You're not only a bad historian, you're a bad citizen."

Do you consider advocates and supporters of the "bread and circus" to be good citizens? or you simply no idea what the historical reference is?

bitterrenter said...

We wouldn't have to coerce people to contribute if not for selfish conservatives. If the tax code were voluntary only suckers would pay and none of the republicans would kick in a penny. Of course they'd use all the services they could get but then skip out on the payment.

And we do determine the amount of cooperation and coercion by who we elect to make policy. The little foray into tax-cutting of the last 30 years have left us broke and crumbling. That's what the people get for voting in republicans who neglected our society. Now, they're rejecting that as evidenced by their turning out republicans in 2006, a move that will accelerate in 2008. No coercion, just voting.

Ah, time for the obscure quiz as if that will somehow make your suppositions of "what ifs" true. Remember, we never followed the path you describe so your way has been untested since before the last century. But if you're referring to an attempt to feed and amuse the masses in lieu of real change, that's fine with me if that's all you're capable of at the time. Conservatives can't even manage that because they LOVE to see people in misery. It makes them feel better about themselves until they get the short end of the stick. Then they bleat like lost sheep for help.

Better get busy on pumping from you well to shower and driving on your private roads to see your self-sufficient parents and let them see their grandkids who never got a penny from the public school. I know how you stand alone cons never use the services of the society you refuse to support until forced.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

"We wouldn't have to coerce people to contribute if not for selfish conservatives. If the tax code were voluntary only suckers would pay"

If you call all voluntary contributors "suckers," then obviously you wouldn't contribute and you are extrapolating from your own inclinations. It's rather refreshing to see you call yourself "selfish conservative." I wouldn't be so hard on your; if the money I contribute to the charity can motivate you to do something for the poor and the hungry, not out of the goodness of your heart but because you are paid by the charity, that's fine by me. I wouldn't send some jack booted thug to beat down your door and force you to contribute as much as I do . . . because the cost of hiring the enforcer is probably more than hiring you to get the work done any way.

"none of the republicans would kick in a penny. "

The last time I went to a charity brunch, it was a non-partisan fair, with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and plain non-partisan individuals all pitching in voluntarily for the good of the community. I took some of the family members along, and chalked up the contributions in lieu of the wasteful family gift giving that I always had a distaste for. Man, the flaming "liberals" in the family were mad because some anonymous homeless and hungry people were getting over a thousand dollars for food instead of their own brats getting the annual plastic junk from China.

"And we do determine the amount of cooperation and coercion by who we elect to make policy."

Then you must be thrilled about your cul de sac neighbors voting to share your car, your house and your wife . . . if you have none of these three, if you really are a bitter renter instead of a hired shill trolling on behalf of some rich banker sucking off the blood of the working families, then how happy are you about roommates taking a vote on taking liberty to your food and beer in the fridge?

"The little foray into tax-cutting of the last 30 years have left us broke and crumbling. That's what the people get for voting in republicans who neglected our society."

Out of those 30 years, 12 had a Democrat as the president (Clinton 8, Carter 4). Out of those 30 years, the chamber constitutionally designated as the origination place for revenue bills, the US House of Representatives, was controlled by the Democrats for 19 years (all the years excepting 1995-2006); that's 19 out of 30 years. You have to have some kind of partisan blinder on to draw your ridiculous conclusions. The reality behind the crumbing infrastructure is the anemic 0.25% annual per capita income growth rate that we have been having under socialism-lite, compared to the 2.5% annual growth rate (both adjusted for real inflation rate, the constant gold price) in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when much of the city infrastructures were originally built.

"Ah, time for the obscure quiz as if that will somehow make your suppositions of "what ifs" true."

There is nothing obscure about those historical facts that I cited. You can spend some time and educate yourself on the subjects. I did not at all intend the citations as a quiz, but instead presuming them to be common knowledge that an educated person should know at least something about before spouting off political systems and their effect on economies and liberty. On the other hand, don't blame the facts just because you are too ignorant to know them. Keep in mind, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat the same mistakes.

"Remember, we never followed the path you describe so your way has been untested since before the last century"

What kind of logic is that? That a slave can not yearn for freedom because he is born a slave? Then you have to convince yourself that you can not criticize W at all because "the path" had him, not the alternative, as the president. What kind of hare brained illogic is that? Consequences of policy alternatives can be estimated based on historical performance of similar policies. That's why you need to know your history, not just working on some empty touchy-feeliness completely devoid of any knowledge about the the dire consequences of every single historical attempt at trying out those same utopic ideas as societal institutions.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

Roads, water distribution systems/well maintenance companies, even electric utility companies, and schools all existed long before the government got into any of those businesses. In fact, what happened was utility service providers inviting government sponsorship in order to set up local monopolies and keep out competition. The result was higher cost and lower quality of service for consumers, but higher profit margin for the incumbent utility companies, just like any other monopoly in any other industry.

abb said...

Congratulations! You just threw out the rascals! (for another set of rascals)

And in 4 more years you can do it again! And it will feel SO GOOD!

My IQ is >150 so I really don't understand how people with IQs <130think. So help me out here...

At what point will this blatant, repetitive pattern become obvious to you?

Bitterrenter said...

It's to the point where I skim your posts.

There most certainly was not infrastructure and utilities before the government and society made it an imperative to create them. Whether it was building a road in the 1800s or rural electrification in the early part of the 20th century, public goods have NEVER just popped out of the earth. It has always been the leaders of the town, the city or the country (the GOVERNMENT as it were) that decides how we organize and civilize. You're just talking out your ass at this point.

In your world black is white and night is day.

It's not emotion that makes people see the political ideologies differently, it's the empirical evidence of what their policies do to people and society. That's how we make the decision on who to vote for. You can say that there's no difference in the ideologies or claim that conservatism, libertarianism or whatever else you people have chosen to call your cult of selfishness and greed seeking a name is superior to a collectivist liberalism but the historical evidence is firmly behind the latter.

Why don't you go research how liberal policies result in improvements of societal health under every measure known to social science? It's easy. Look around. All the things you take for granted are the result of liberal policies, even your personal freedoms and rights. We're ALL liberals. The ideas of freedom, opportunity and self-determination are LIBERAL ideas. Otherwise we'd still be monarchies or live under a feudal system. But you can't see it because liberalism WON a long time ago and now we're just arguing over HOW liberal we're going to be. it'll never be how you want it ands it hasn't been for centuries. You can't argue that your way is superior because there's not been a time like that for ages.

And as we've become MORE liberal, our freedoms and conveniences have increased. That liberalism is completely linked to strong leaderships or GOVERNMENTS that have directed the resources and the policies of advanced cultures towards MORE liberalism.

Take a look at the world. The countries with the strongest, largest governments are the most advanced. Countries with weak, small, ineffective governments are still third world. That's the best evidence of the triumph of BIG government over your voluntary contributory world. Despite your fairy tales about all the republicans fundraisers you attend to give back to the little people (you think that's even close to being believable?) there's NO entity that can do as much for so many as an organized central government. Over 85% of money given philanthropically is from the GOVERNMENT. I'd rather have the government, the LEADERS we elected, divvy up the cash rather than some republican idiot who would use it all to build golf courses.

You better run though. You must put on your tux to get to one of those fabulous fundraisers you and your family-who-don't-use-societal-services attend that would end the need for political leadership if only we saw the wisdom in savagery.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

Your typical ignorance of history is making yourself calling the black white and the white black (while accusing others of doing that). Private road building (Turnpikes) was one of the earliest stock market bubbles in the US history (very similar to railroad bubble and internet bubble later on). Before that, typical earliest colonial towns and settlements were founded as joint stock companies. Here is the real history on how utility companies worked in the late 19th century, a case study on the Gas and Light Company of Baltimore, where the term "natural monopoly" was invented:

The Myth of Natural Monopoly
http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf

Just to save your time, here's the excerpt starting from page 47:

[i]The history of the Gas Light Company of Baltimore is that, from
its founding in 1816, it constantly struggled with new competitors. Its response was not only to try to compete in the marketplace, but also to lobby the state and local government authorities to refrain from granting corporate charters to its competitors. [/i]

[i]In 1880 there were three competing gas companies in Baltimore who fiercely competed with one another. They tried to merge and operate as a monopolist in 1888, but a new competitor foiled their plans: "Thomas Aha Edison introduced the electric light which threatened the existence of all gas companies." From that point on there was compe-
tition between both gas and electric companies, all of which incurred heavy fixed costs which led to economies of scale. Nevertheless, no free-market or "natural" monopoly ever materialized.
When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government
intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly." This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will
gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues. [/i]

Your idea that government led the way to build the way to build public utility is completely anachronistic. Notice, the particular private Baltimore company was founded in 1816, more than 70 years before government sanctioned consolidation and monopoly was put in place in 1890. Government's late participation mostly dealth with guaranteeing monopoly profits and wasting tax payer money on boondongles building bridges to nowhere. That includes the so-called "Rural electrification" program of the early 20th century. Rural Americans had electricity since at least the late 19th centuries. They generate their own electricity using steel windmills wherever it made economic sense; look at any painting and photos from that era; the landscape was dotted with windmills. The "Rural Electrification" program was literally the bridge to an island with hardly any residents program of its time. The government sanctioned utility monopoly received the tax money on cost-plus basis; i.e. guaranteed profit (the higher the cost the more profit), from which kickbacks were doled out to politicians. Where windmills and ferry would have made more ecnomoic sense, those tax-wasting government sponsored programs served to kill the windmills and ferry, and extend the power of the monopolies.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

"It's not emotion that makes people see the political ideologies differently, it's the empirical evidence of what their policies do to people and society. "

Then how do you explain your own repeated assertions about history that were exactly the opposite of the empirical evideces? That's why there is a saying: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat them . . . because they once again go down the path of emotional logical fallacy that historically proved wrong again and again.

"We're ALL liberals. The ideas of freedom, opportunity and self-determination are LIBERAL ideas. Otherwise we'd still be monarchies or live under a feudal system. "

I do consider myself a liberal, in the classical Jeffersonian and Madisonian sense. The so-called "liberals" in the popular American use of the word since the early 20th century are not liberals at all. How do you square freedom and self-determination with the ideology that government officals can take anything from you and tell you what to do? There is nothing liberal about taking the fruit of labor from the working families and give it to the super rich on "cost-plus" basis (i.e. guaranteed profit; the more wasteful the project the more profit) doing things that make the working families less independent (e.g. government sanctioned monopolies).

"there's NO entity that can do as much for so many as an organized central government. "

The correct satement would be: There is no entity that can do AS MUCH HARM as an organized central government. Think about it, a central government far away from locales is by definition an Imperial Government. Just like a vote in the UN can not possible always co-incide with the interest of the people of the US, a vote in the entire US can not possibly always co-incide with the interest of the people of California and the Dakotas and the Georgians all at the same time. Some local majority is going to have their will overwritten, and it's not because of the apriori protection of local personal freedom either, but because some lobbyists bought off some politician far far away! The ultimate wet dream of big centralized government running things on the ground right now of course is running Iraqi oil fields from DC, half a world away. Guess how successful that has been?

Imperialism and Feudalism don't work nearly as efficiently as the free market place. Socialism is just sugar-coated feudalism as it postuates government officials taking wealth and power from individuals. Due to the territorial monopoly nature of feudalism (including socialism), imperialism is its inevitable end stage game. Government impositions are inefficient, so market participants will try to escape from the territory under such a monopoly; the feudal/socialist state would have no choice but to become imperialistic and expansionistic, thereby bringing its own downfall, assuming internal collapse due to inefficiency doesn't do it in first. That's the nature of a mafia/feudal state.

Reality said...

"Take a look at the world. The countries with the strongest, largest governments are the most advanced. Countries with weak, small, ineffective governments are still third world. That's the best evidence of the triumph of BIG government over your voluntary contributory world."

That's complete nonsense. You are not only ignorant of history but also ignorant of the world in general. China's FDA employs over 200,000 people, whereas that of the US only has a few hundred people. Which country has safer food? At the height of cold war, the East German Stasi (the big central state security organ, their equivalent of KGB) fully employed 1/5 of that country's population. Was East Germany a more successful state than West Germany? Only in the 1980's CIA report. LOL. North Korean government is much bigger and have far more control over its citizens than the South Korean government even today. Which country is more successful? By the way, Kim of North Korea routinely gets 98+% votes in the elections, as did the East German and soviet bosses :-) As Stalin once said, it doesn't matter who votes, who gets to count the votes is what really matters :-) When the government controls the economy, voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbents.

Reality said...

"And as we've become MORE liberal, our freedoms and conveniences have increased. That liberalism is completely linked to strong leaderships or GOVERNMENTS that have directed the resources and the policies of advanced cultures towards MORE liberalism. "

No, what you are describing is Totalitarianism and Fascism: the advancement of total control by the government. Yes, there were lovers of Totalitarianism and Fascism: at the Mussolini government made train run on time. LOL.

Since you like big centralized strong leadership so much, guess who had the slogan "One nation, one people, and one leader"?

Reality said...

"Over 85% of money given philanthropically is from the GOVERNMENT. I'd rather have the government, the LEADERS we elected, divvy up the cash "

Don't you see something wrong this picture? How can it be philanthropy when the men in charge are giving away other people's money, while at the same time drawing a hefty salary from the same pool of money? Do you honestly believe it's better to give $1 to some bureacrats and have them give 13 cents out of that dollar to the needy after pocketing 87 cents themselves, instead of say, just give the $1 to the needy to begin with?

Reality said...

Do you consider a mafia that takes money from the community by extorsion, then distribute 13% of the take to the local orphanage so that they can have the next generation recruits, a form of savagery or a form of advanced civilization? Do you really celebrate when the next bomb goes off at a store that refuses to pay the blackmail? If you are a mafia insider, you might.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

BTW, your writings are showing that you are indeed a stingy person who doesn't give to charity voluntarily. Most community fundraisers, especially those for food banks, do not require tux at all. They tend to be very informal affairs. The last one that I attended, I showed up in sweat shirt and khakis. There's no name recognition conferred. Every attendent just go there as if going to a normal restaurant; the hotel/restaurant is donating their food and staff time. On top of the normal meal cost (which the venue is donating to charity instead of taking in as revenue), every attendent is free to leave a check for however much the donor is comfortable with. You can attend for as little as $35 a person (yes, these are usually nice restaurants/hotels). Of course, think of the poor and homeless in winter holiday season, especially during this economic down turn, you are encourage to donate as much as you are comfortable with, without ever being pushed. Nobody gives speech. You will be sitting with your family and friends, just like a normal restaurant meal; no talks about charity necessary unless you want to. Try it later this year, and you will see the places usually packed by normal people without any motive for name recognition. There is no registry or plaque; only call ahead to reserve because they usually have to serve the meal in multiple turn-overs for each seat, often one turn-over each hour for 4-5hrs. So don't take up the table for too long. Bring the check, have a nice light meal with your family, and then get out there without delay, with the satisfying knowledge that some homeless and/or poor people somewhere in your community will have a few extra meals :-)

Reality said...

Abb,

Exactly! Until people realize that the government is not the solution, it's the problem! no amount of horse switching is going to make any difference . . . all the horses are owned by the same people and rigged for a dog-and-pony show. They are all bent on robbing from the middle class and working families at gun point for the benefit of the ultra wealthy, who use the government as the collection agency. The bigger the government, the bigger the debt, the bigger the interest payment, the greater the ultra wealthy and ultra powerful's control over the lives of everyone else.

I don't have an IQ as high as yours, only got 140, but even I can see the nonsense for what it is.

bitterrenter said...

You're right. Government is bad and wrong. We should instead defer to a system of every man for himself and let the priorities of a society set themselves. It's never been done before ever in the history of civilization, but we might as well try now. Especially since the world we live in was built under a system of a strong central government setting the priorities with the voting approval of the people. A government with quite a successful track record I might add.

Strong central government countries that are still in existence have produced the first world countries. That includes the US, Canada, Japan and European countries. Weak, small governments, the third world.

What you advocate is chaos. You can do that because the strong central government created so much stability in your life. You have no clue what the alternative would be like. But I can guarantee you wouldn't like it despite your belief in the kindness of your charitable neighbors. The complexities of modern life make the system you propose not only unworkable but impossible to manage. However you can continue advocating for something that has been soundly rejected all over the world.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

Here's a video clip of Judge Napolitano's address on where the ultimate source of liberty should be, whether from the government blessing or an innate element of humanity . . . a very important point not only on taxation but also on whether the GWB administration should have the right to look into your life without court order:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3088003906279330520&q=patriot+act&ei=KfVTSMSnOaHuqgOS1uD2Dg&hl=en

If you believe government is the ultimate source of liberty and freedom, you are well on your way to serfdom.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

I see, you are back to your empty polemic assertions again.

"You're right. Government is bad and wrong. We should instead defer to a system of every man for himself and let the priorities of a society set themselves."

We actually do live in a world where every man is first and foremost for himself. The experiments to create "The New Socialist Man" failed, and failed miserably. The only real choice we have is between a system where nobody has special privilages vs. a system where certain participants are given special privilages and the power to force others to do their bidding, whether such a privilaged class is called Master, Lord, Peerage, comrade or government officials is quite immaterial.

"It's never been done before ever in the history of civilization, but we might as well try now. Especially since the world we live in was built under a system of a strong central government setting the priorities with the voting approval of the people. A government with quite a successful track record I might add."

What country do you live in, anyway? The United States was built on the principle of limited government. Not "strong central government." In fact, the very fact that Western Civilization has proven itself such a success over the past 500 years over all stripes of oriental despotism (read: strong central government was a common trait in the East) was precisely the decentralization and lack of overall government monopoly. Political fragmentation is a good thing for liberty and freedom for the idividual.

"Strong central government countries that are still in existence have produced the first world countries. That includes the US, Canada, Japan and European countries. Weak, small governments, the third world. "

The US had much faster economic growth rate when it had a less strong and less centralized federal government. You can easily compare the per capital income growth rate before vs. after the Hoover-FDR years: 2.5% per anum vs. 0.25% per anum. Canada also had one of the weakest central government for much of its existence. Even to this day, Quebecoise can secceed if they choose to do so. Japan's big centralized government only brought it militarism and national catastrophe in the 1930's and 40's. Post-war Japanese government is a much much smaller one than the one before. West Europe had smaller governments than Eastern European countries in the second half of 20th century; the divergent development came in stark contrast.

Like I mentioned before, much of the success story of the Euro-centric Western Civilization has been due to the lack of big centralized government. For example, when the centralized Japanese government decided on a course of closed-door policies by the last Bakufu government, tens of thousands of Japanese christian converts were murdered by the state and Japanese economy went into a spiral of decline, until Commodore Perry's arrival. When centralized Chinese Ming government decided on high seas ban, that was the end of Chinese marine time industry. Whereas. . . when the Italian Columbus couldn't find funding for his west-bound project in Italy, he could find funding from Isabella of Spain, and his cohorts were on the verge of getting alternative funding from English Crown too. BTW, the royals were acting as private investors investing for their own portfolio, although what's private royal treasure vs. what's public treasure gets a little blurred just like in socialism: where the leader's property and power ends. When Spanish Inquisition kicked out Jewish bankers in the same year (as Columbus' embarkation for the New World), they could find new homes in the fragmented Europe: Netherland became their home, and the center of world commerce. When Louise XIV invaded Netherlands and threatened to pillage that country, the same financial houses moved to London, which in turn became the center of world trade and commerce. When the Kaiser and Hitler threatened London, New York was ready to receive that wealth. These episodes of escapes could not have happened in the centralized Islamic world, or the centralized Japanese world, or the centralized Chinese world. Their histories were replete with government depredation on commercial successes, and turning the economy back to the dark ages.

Yes, in times of prosperity, the ignorant socialists of Europe tried unification, as if the wild asperations of some Prussian aristocrat or maglomaniac Austrian/Bavarian national socialist were really worth pursueing. EU is about to fall apart, the Germans are demanding locally issued currencies. Collectivism simply doesn't work.

"What you advocate is chaos."

That's a common misconception. In reality, it's the government's ill-conceived interventions in the market place that creates chaos. Ludwig von Mises wrote on this very subject more than half a century ago ("Planned Chaos"). Frankly, you argument against freedom and liberty because "they would bring chaos" is sounding more and more like the soviet apparatchiks and the Chinese communist dictators who brought tanks onto the streets to suppress their own people.

"You can do that because the strong central government created so much stability in your life. You have no clue what the alternative would be like. But I can guarantee you wouldn't like it despite your belief in the kindness of your charitable neighbors."

You have no clue what my life has gone through. You may sit on your butt and hope the government delivers your next meal, or the government school bus picks you up before the next flood reaches your door . . . I don't. In fact, there's a far greater chance of government thugs shooting you dead the next time when they knock on your door just like those tragic mandatory evacuation episodes.

"You have no clue where
The complexities of modern life make the system you propose not only unworkable but impossible to manage."

It's precisely the complexities of life that makes it impossible for government remote decision making in lieu of eaching individual voting with their feet and with their money every single minute of the day. Life was too complex for the government to manage even before the modern era. That's why people routinely moved to the frontiers, away from the seats of government, in search of liberty and freedom. The modern life is even more complex, and even more prone to have government create chaos in its meddlings.

Glad at least you no longer cling to the fantasy that it was government that gave us roads, utility, schools, etc. etc. all of which were available long before government involvement . . . and subsequent government involvement only led to monopolies that delivered lower quality at higher cost to consumers. Now you are clinging to the value of government as the source of stability. In other words, the old Hobbes "Leviathan" argument of the 18th century. You should read up on Locke vs. Hobbes, and see how John Locke completely debunked Hobbs. Here is a great quote from John Locke, the father of liberalism: "It is only with the greatest conceit that one attempts to FORCE individuals to pay for a roduct or service after they have opted NOT to pay." What you call "stability" is really preying on people's fear of insecurity. Ben Frnaklin had this to say: those who would trade liberty and freedom for security shall deserve neither.

The dramatic contrast in real (gold price adjusted) per capita income growth in the US in the 70 years since Hoover-FDR vs. the 70 years before them show that old Ben was exactly right. After 70+ years of socialist false security, we are on the verge of losing both liberty and security, and losing out birth right as Americans under the US Constitution. The idiots who think liberty and freedom are bestowed by the government are certainly not helping matters.

Reality said...

Bitterrenter,

BTW, the very basis of liberalism is that:

(1) Society is capable of self-management;

(2) Government is not the reason for order in society.

Hobbs argued for the need of a Leviathan to give law because he was defending Monarchy! It's rather ironic that you call yourself a "liberal" and then take up Hobbs' argument. Thomas Paine (one of the guiding philosophical lights behind the American Revolution) had this to say:

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.