The Tea Party is anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power

Originally posted by nenothtu
Debt is somehow NOT debt if as government does it as opposed to an individual? What is the difference?

The difference is that it simply is not equatable. They are two completely distinct concepts.

For an individual debt is a real concrete variable.

The difference is that the U.S. Government can have a deficit but the United State's economy can still be healthy. It is a logistical issue and not necessarily a problem in and of itself.

Studying the operations of the Federal Reserve is the easiest way to comprehend this.

In fact; history repeatedly shows that during a recession, we should not even be thinking about cutting spending or deficit reduction.

reply to post by nenothtu


I can take you to the well, but I can't make you drink.

For example, you insist on laying the inception at the feet of Nixon, where I would, if pushed into finding a modern "starting point", have to lay it at the feet of Johnson and his "War on Poverty".

You are not reading what I am writing, nor are you looking at the evidence. I don't lay the inception at the feet of Nixon. Clearly I have pointed out that the roots over these conflicts go back to the beginning of civilization. This latest round of attack on individual liberty did begin under Nixon, but if you read the links I provided, it wasn't Nixon who started the whole thing.

It is like you don't want the curtain pulled back, you don't want to see the truth from a broader perspective.

Yeah, a lot of things were done wrong under Johnson. Do you think the civil rights movement should not have happened? If so, then we are clearly on opposite sides. If your opinion is more of the matter that the civil rights movement has gone too far, then we agree. As far as welfare goes, I see no problem with helping people down on their luck, and I would rather see the fed gov doing it than some church group. Once again, welfare went too far, and I have no disagreements with this.

What you seemingly choose is ignore, is that welfare went way wrong under the control of conservative politicians. Here you are being too obsessed with partisan politics, and not looking at who did what. Yeah, the liberals on the extreme end of the debate fully supported a civil rights movement and welfare programs that did a lot of bad thing. Welfare should only be a temporary things for people down on their luck, not a way of life. Extremists of both parties made all of this happen, although both for different reasons. I see that. Can you?

Here is a reasonable link about how search and seizure laws changed in the 1980ties leading to land seizures without even a conviction.

law.jrank.org...

As with arrests, the overwhelming proportion of police searches are made without a warrant. In particular, automobiles and any containers in them may be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause—information indicating a substantial chance that the auto contains contraband or evidence of a crime (California v. Acevedo (1991)). Generally, searches made under one of the exceptions to the search-warrant requirement must be based upon probable cause that contraband or evidence of a crime may be found. However, inventory searches, which are justified by administrative and safety considerations rather than law enforcement purposes per se, do not require probable cause.

Read more: Search and Seizure - Scope of Fourth Amendment Protection., Use of Warrants., Warrantless Arrests and Searches - Police, Evidence, Amendment, Person, Fourth, and Warrant law.jrank.org...

And this one.

lawreview.law.pitt.edu...

Du e to th e p r e se n c e o f th i s imp o rt a n t F o u r th Ame n dme n t is s u e i n d ru g
prosecutions, both s ta t e a n d f e d er a l, a si g n if ic a n t n umb e r o f t h es e ca s es fo u n d
their way to the United Stat e s S u preme Court for review. In most of these
cases, the Cour t did not di s appoint the Republ i c an Pr e s ident s who had
appoint ed a ma j or it y o f th e Jus t i c e s. Unde r the tut e lage of Chi e f Jus t ic e s Burge r and Rehn qui s t , the Cour t took the oppor tuni ty to rule i n fa v o r o f th e
g o v er nme n t most of the t ime , l ending i t s impr ima tur to the pa r t i cula r s e a rch
a n d seizure practice employed and, in doing so, s lant ed the Cons t i tution
toward validating police practices and away from individu al privacy—what I
have c a l l ed t h e “ b l u ei n g ” ( fo r p ol ic e b lu e ) of Ame r ic a . No t o n ly wa s t h e
wa r ra n t r e q u ir eme n t r e la x e d , but also expectations of privacy were drastically
n a r rowe d , a n d th e police were granted virtually open season on vehicle
searches. T h e d e f in i ti o n of p ro b a b le c au s e was d il u te d , a n d the s t anda rds on
wha t cons t i tut ed a l aw enfor c ement s e ar ch and seizure were drawn narrowly.

Do you not know this stuff, or do you want to just pretend this stuff didn't happen, or are completely fine with the way the republican admins have undermined our privacy and liberties?

I have reason to severely doubt the assertion that Reagan was somehow supporting drug cartels in Central and South America.

Well, maybe Reagan really didn't know what was going on within his own administration, and should have resigned, because the people who ran his administration were chin deep in funding and supporting drug operations, ALL THE WHILE PUSHING THE WAR ON DRUGS HERE IN THE U.S., UNDERMINING OUR CIVIL RIGHTS.

ONCE AGAIN, Do you not know this stuff, or do you want to just pretend this stuff didn't happen, or are completely fine with the way the republican admins have undermined our privacy and liberties?

There's no doubt that we had more freedom in the 60's than now.

If you recognize this, then you should realize that it what happened since those days, is what you should be looking at, as to what, how, and whom has succeeded in once again stripping our freedoms away. There is a great deal of evidence that the entire drug craze was pushed onto the youth of the U.S. for the very purpose of using drug enforcement to deprive us of our liberties. Did you read any of this link?

Maybe this will open your eyes. www.illuminati-news.com...

If you listen to these right wing talk radio shows, you are being fed a huge line of BS. Unplugged and learn the truth.

The only purpose of the TPers, is to fool the people, once again, into supporting policies that undermine our rights and strip us our our wealth, and opportunities. What the TPers want and intend on doing is exactly the opposite of what is good for the people. Look at what has worked, and start from there. What made us successful in the fifties and sixties?

reply to post by inforeal

You Miss are a Idiot.Holding the country hostage?The right thing to do was say no to any debt.We owe money.We don't have money to pay the credit card company back.This is the time when Dad(Ron Paul)comes in the room and chastises you for being irresponsible and sends you to bed.He then cuts up your"my little pony"credit card and throws it in the trash.He then sits up late at night and thinks of a way to punish turds like you.My guess is you either work for Media,Gov.,Gambler(stock exchange) or plain nuts/stupid.But good luck with that.End of story.

reply to post by JulianAlien


Ron Paul is as crooked as any pol out there. He has consistently supported the policies that got us into this mess.

Heck, Ron Paul want to sell our public assets to corporations, our water supplies, rivers, roads, all that. He is the worst of the con artists.

All you people who believe in Ron Paul are delusional.

The Mises institution teaches repackaged communism.

Debt crisis: Military spending and wars collapsing America, spending $1.25 trillion dollars each year from tax payers money

The bizarre Pagan ritual of the Bohemian Grove—the Cremation of Care ceremony—is practiced by its members (all men), including both Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, Richard M. Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Walter Cronkite, Colin Powell, and Henry Kissinger to name but a few. The meeting is held every July. It is purported that Obama and McCain visited Bohemian Grove in July of 2008.

If you're still doubting reality. The November 1989 edition of SPY magazine featured photos of Bohemian Grove men dancing around dressed up as women. The article included artist renditions of the Moloch idol and discussed how they bus in male prostitutes and how AIDS is a big problem. In July of 2004, a New York Post article reported how a top gay-porn star, Chad Savage, serviced the moguls at the Bohemian Grove. Bigwigs who have attended the two-week retreat include George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Walter Cronkite, Newt Gingrich, Alexander Haig, Jack Kemp, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, John Major, William F. Buckley, Justin Dart, William Randolph Hearst, Jr., Caspar Weinberger, Charles Percy, George Schultz, Edward Teller, and former C.I.A. director William Casey.

Bill Clinton admitted he smoked Marijuana! Bill Clinton: >>I'd have sexual relationship with that woman Ms. Lewinsky, i told anybody to lie

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by dakota1s2

 

Do you think most of America would support the threat of the default of the american economic system to get thier political issues enacted ?

The threat of default???

wow.

The Tea Party is trying to save the country. If it takes a default to do it, then by god! that's what we need to do. Spending our way out of this mess has worked realy well.

So we should do more of the same?

edit on 30-7-2011 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

If the Tea Party really wanted to "Save" this country, maybe they should consider chartering several very large cruise ships, get all their people aboard, then sail off into the sunset never looking back. And please, take all your freedom loving Bible thumpers with you!

If I had to depend on the ignorance and hypocrisy of the Tea Party for salvation, I would just as soon be left to my own demise.

flatfish, if I could star your post ad infinitum, I would. The Tea Party should just come out and say what they really mean/want. These misguided "True Americans" and constitutionalists are bringing back a new and improved Gilded Age, sans philantropy.

In their fierce defense of no tax increases and aggresive stance against "socialism", they forget that even if the average Tea Party member earns a $500K a year -doubtful- they are in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Only difference is that Gates and Buffett pay less taxes than they do (see Buffett's comments about his secretary earning $60K a year and paying more taxes than him - even Buffett thinks this is shameful. And their so called job creators, currently have advantageous tax rates, incredibly low interest rates on loans and above average earnings, all this while eliminating local jobs, outsourcing said jobs to growing economies (where the average worker earns pennies on the dollar) and, let's not forget, have the undeniable advantage of lobbyists whispering in the ears of our so-called elected representatives.

Why give back to the needy? Let them learn to fish. Which is my other point of contention. For a bunch of Bible thumpers. they ignore the basic tenets of their Lord Jesus Christ: Help those in need. Sell all your riches to help the poor. Be compassionate...Oh, and a something he said about giving Caesar what is Caesar's...regarding TAXES.

So, I sincerely hope that the Tea Party members so ready to eliminate all forms of social assistance are ready to send their underage children and grandchildren to work for their job creators. Because if we are going to repeal/amend our "entitlements" -which we pay for- might as well go all out and eliminate child labor laws, and the 40hr work week, overtime, sick leave, paid vacation and holidays, OSHA and that pesky minimum wage.

And when their 10 year old comes home discouraged because he got fired for having lunch, make sure you tell him to man up, and learn to fish.

Originally posted by pivilu

So, I sincerely hope that the Tea Party members so ready to eliminate all forms of social assistance are ready to send their underage children and grandchildren to work for their job creators. Because if we are going to repeal/amend our "entitlements" -which we pay for- might as well go all out and eliminate child labor laws, and the 40hr work week, overtime, sick leave, paid vacation and holidays, OSHA and that pesky minimum wage.

And when their 10 year old comes home discouraged because he got fired for having lunch, make sure you tell him to man up, and learn to fish.

Wow. Hyperbole much?

Why send your kids to work for someone else? That's not "teaching them to fish", that's teaching them how to hold the fishing pole for someone else.

I fail to see how that would improve anything above what we already have. I'm of the opinion that the mindset that requires you to work for someone else, and the dependency that fosters, is a big part of the problems we have now.

If you depend on them for work, for money, for sustenance, I don't see how that differs from depending on government for the same. Dependency is dependency - once you're hooked on it, what difference does it make which master you acknowledge and depend on?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Kokatsi

 

As my earlier post here sas, the TP was funded by elites specifically the ultra-rich Koch brothers. So there is not much difference.

Anyone who believes the TP isn't primarily acting for big business is dillusional

Then again, that's true for the other 2 parties too

The whole "for the people by the people" doesn't hold true anymore, it's now "for corporations, by the people"...happy times.

It's "delusional", and it has nothing to do with corporations or elites, it is for bringing back the values of our Founding Fathers and getting our Liberty back with limited govt. How many times do we have to keep saying it? See you want to believe the liberal rags and not the people in the Tea Party.

edit on 4-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

The elephant in the living room... if it were tackled, I would back the Tea Party.
This elephant is not the existence of rich folks. They are OK.
It is the cheat that was fostered upon us by one of the Amendments of the Constitution created after the Civil War for the benefit of black people - and used by corporate lawyers.
Corporations should NEVER have the same rights as live individuals. Period. From that point on, the very word "freedom" means something ELSE than before. Before, the FF meant living human beings.
Now it means Exxon, Enron - versus you.

The elephant in the living room is ... called LEGAL ENTITIES in legal parlance. That means, you and Monsanto are in the same category (that should never happen). You are free to sue - but THEY are legally and practically immortal. You are not. They are rich, and you are not. They will pay one hundred lawyers while you can have ... what the state appoints (until eager Republicans do away with that right too.)

See. Corporate manipulators will pose government as your chief enemy. In actuality, the life of the average American suffers far more from the unlimited and unregulated power of corporations and investor clubs acting as if they were live people than from their elected governments.

Consider this: You vote for elections, state and federal representatives etc. That means GOVERNMENT.

Do you ever vote for corporate CEO's? No.

You vote for public issues of law. Whatever your conscience says about gay rights or taxes, ynd you find the right candidate, you vote. Whether you are poor or rich. Do you vote for corporate charters?

They are not even public...

That is not how corporations operate. They have charters - and I studied a number of those in legalese - and they will get rid of anyone - CEO or even an investor - if that person does not maximize their profits. It is a soulless machine much like a Bolshevik government.

While the US gov is PARTLY corrupt - being funded for its political campaings by the very corporations we talked about up here - to a certain extent it still represents a counterbalance to unlimited plutocracy.

So: if you want to limit government right now, and cut back taxes, guess who it will benefit? Rupert Murdoch and the like.

Now if you were the head of a rich investor club, what issues would you sponsor in public?

Anti-government issues and anything that limits taxes. Hoorray! WE are the True America! Down with big government! More and more freedom - (you imagine it is for people, but in reality it is for LEGAL ENTITIES.)

Now if you were smart, would you sell that idea to the public like "I want my riches and my power to be protected by 'we the people'"?

No.

You would sell that under the cheat issue of Amendment 16.
I want more freedom to individuals (read: corporations) and less intervening and less taxes by government!

Corollary: at this point in history, if you are for a radical curbing of government, you are an ENEMY TO DEMOCRACY. Because, you see, by opposing all government power, you will promote the growth of a power far more anti-democratic than any state or federal organization: the power of the likes of Enron and Exxon.

That is precisely what the investor folks would want you to do. and they will thank you evry much and will cover the costs of your rallies.

The elephant in the living room.

Originally posted by Kokatsi

Consider this: You vote for elections, state and federal representatives etc. That means GOVERNMENT.

Do you ever vote for corporate CEO's? No.

You vote for public issues of law. Whatever your conscience says about gay rights or taxes, ynd you find the right candidate, you vote. Whether you are poor or rich. Do you vote for corporate charters?

They are not even public...

The difference: I am occasionally required by law to interact with the government. In my entire life, up until Obama rammed through the Insurance Corporation Protection and Enrichment law (AKA "Healthcare 'Reform' "), I was not required by law to interact with ANY corporation. No, I didn't generally vote for them, but neither did I have to have anything to do with them. Seems fair enough to me.

Corollary: at this point in history, if you are for a radical curbing of government, you are an ENEMY TO DEMOCRACY. Because, you see, by opposing all government power, you will promote the growth of a power far more anti-democratic than any state or federal organization: the power of the likes of Enron and Exxon.

I am now, and always have been, anti-democracy. I'm not a big fan of mob rule. You say it like being against mob rule is somehow a bad thing...

No matter. I'm reliably informed that because of my stance against the mobs, I am in good company, and stand upon the shoulders of giants... the men otherwise known as the Founding Fathers.

Unless you are very rich, you WILL be involved by corporations and their rule.
You will breath in Monsanto's pollen, use chemicals developed by Big Pharma companies etc.

Well, one can be against democracy, but it is not a popular stance these days - the alternatives are dictatorship or royalty and popes.
From this point of view, I see little difference between the "constitutional monarchy" and "democracy" - although many tried to educate me on these pages. Ultimately, it depends on this:
The Founding Fathers of America were at the forefront of a world movement which did not believe people were fallen, sinful slaves that should be ruled with an iron fist by tyrants and so on. Now this was known later under many names: revolution, democracy (term borrowed from Plato but used in a different way than in his works), republican ideas, equality before the law and so on. As opposed to tyranny, theocracy, royalty and rule by aristocracy which believed man is ultimately NOT perfectable, people should be ruled etc.

Yes, freedom is frightening to some. But it is a worthwhile vision.

America that used to be at the forefront in terms of human freedom is not at the forefront any more. Its life has been overshadowed and very much determined by the power of corporations and banks - precisely what some of the Founding Fathers were afraid of. (Not Hamilton, he welcomed it.)

If the masses are consumer idiots and TV addicts today, you may ask who advertises those products and who broadcasts TV. The answer is the same: corporations with money interests. It is in their interest to atomize society, to degrade the average person and to make him or her dependent upon their power. Now how on earth do you resist advertisements and TV if you are a few years old, your parents ar working, society has been broken up and atomized by the time they were adults, so there is nowhere to turn?

The African saying was that you need a whole village to raise a child.

Where are those villages? Where are the communities of America? I know historically there is less and less as consumerism is pushed into people's lives with the brutality of a Stalinist dictatorship, but certainly with more refinery. Can you raise a child without the Disney mind control? Not really if you have to work to support yourself. Who pushes that horror, that cultural death?

That's right. A for-profit corporation.

The elephant in the living room.

Originally posted by Kokatsi
Unless you are very rich, you WILL be involved by corporations and their rule.
You will breath in Monsanto's pollen, use chemicals developed by Big Pharma companies etc.

Scary world you live in. The pollen I can sort of see, since it can travel a few hundred miles, right? Not sure why I should be more scared of breathing Monsanto pollen than common ragweed pollen, though. Not grasping the concept behind the allegation of Big Pharma chemicals, at all. Can you give me a compelling reason for WHY I would use them whether I like it or not?

Well, one can be against democracy, but it is not a popular stance these days - the alternatives are dictatorship or royalty and popes.

I live in a Constitutional Republic. we've done fairly ok so far without the aid of dictators, kings, or popes. As far as the popularity of my stance goes, it matters nary a bit. I've never really been in the popular crowd, and really haven't missed it.

From this point of view, I see little difference between the "constitutional monarchy" and "democracy" - although many tried to educate me on these pages. Ultimately, it depends on this:
The Founding Fathers of America were at the forefront of a world movement which did not believe people were fallen, sinful slaves that should be ruled with an iron fist by tyrants and so on. Now this was known later under many names: revolution, democracy (term borrowed from Plato but used in a different way than in his works), republican ideas, equality before the law and so on. As opposed to tyranny, theocracy, royalty and rule by aristocracy which believed man is ultimately NOT perfectable, people should be ruled etc.

A "monarchy", constitutional or not, involves a monarch. "democracy" involves mob rule. There is a world of difference between the two. I'm not sure where you get the notion that the Founding Fathers of America called their system a "democracy". several warned specifically AGAINST democracy. It was only in the early to mid 20th century that the term came into vogue to describe a system alien to it's definition.

As an aside, it's odd to me how the Marxists used to refer to a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that sounded suspiciously close to the concept of "democracy", while at the same time their alleged opposition was trying to promote "democracy", which sounded suspiciously like the concept of a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

If a rose by any other name still smells the same, then so does a skunk.

Yes, freedom is frightening to some. But it is a worthwhile vision.

Honestly, I believe that very few humans can handle freedom, which probably explains why so many seem to agitate for a crowd to tell them what to do.

America that used to be at the forefront in terms of human freedom is not at the forefront any more. Its life has been overshadowed and very much determined by the power of corporations and banks - precisely what some of the Founding Fathers were afraid of. (Not Hamilton, he welcomed it.)

America has not been at the "forefront of freedom" in a very long time. seems like everyone and his brother and/or sister is clamoring for someone else to tell him what to do, which appears to be a motivating factor in the fear of corporations. For some odd reason, folks seem to think that someone else HAS to tell them what to do, and the only choice they see is between having a collection of neighbors tell them what to do, OR a corporation somewhere. I don't really know what has become of independent thought and decision making.

Personally, I don't see much difference between allowing a corporation to dictate every facet of your existence and allowing any other collection of strangers to do so. Either way, you are forfeiting your self determination.

If the masses are consumer idiots and TV addicts today, you may ask who advertises those products and who broadcasts TV. The answer is the same: corporations with money interests.

Could be. the "masses" don't concern me much. If they can't look after themselves and make their own decisions, it's not my job to do so for them. If they allow a corporation to rule them, they have made their own choice. A poor one from my perspective, but it's their choice to make.

It is in their interest to atomize society, to degrade the average person and to make him or her dependent upon their power.

It seems to me that dependency on ANY external, be it governmental or corporate, can't be a good thing. I can't see a nickel's worth of difference in them. Dependence is dependence, and directly opposed to INDEPENDENCE, which was part of the title in some old document or other that the US used to place stock in... before they got all dependent on whatever came along.

Now how on earth do you resist advertisements and TV if you are a few years old, your parents ar working, society has been broken up and atomized by the time they were adults, so there is nowhere to turn?

Sounds like a failure in parenting to me.

The African saying was that you need a whole village to raise a child.

A very good reason to avoid Africa altogether, then. Perhaps they didn't sign that Independence document I referred to a bit earlier.

Where are those villages?

In Africa, I presume.

Where are the communities of America?

I recommend taking a peek out the front door. Perhaps that will answer that question. I recommend NOT leaving your kids to be raised at the mercy of a community, however. Mine contains several crack heads and gangsters and what not. Not the sort of folk I want raising my kids.

To allow your kids to be raised by a village is a dereliction of your duty as a parent, and simply cannot end well for your kids.

I know historically there is less and less as consumerism is pushed into people's lives with the brutality of a Stalinist dictatorship, but certainly with more refinery.

There is a wonderful word in the English language which, if properly employed, can alleviate much of that problem. That word is "NO". Practice it. My kids are very adept at it's use.

Can you raise a child without the Disney mind control?

So far, so good. Of course, I've raised them largely on my own. Early on, when their mother was around, there was some conflict of philosophy in the matter of Disney and the like.

Not really if you have to work to support yourself.

Terribly sorry about that. I found the TV to be an unacceptable stand in for a baby sitter while working. I wouldn't recommend that for raising your children any more than I would an African village.

reply to post by nenothtu


You don't have automobile insurance?

Law was written long ago forcing people to deal with corporations, Obama is hardly the first.

As far as mob rule is concerned, that is exactly what the TPers are trying to do. Even though they don't have a majority, they are trying to force the rest of us to do what they want, or they pretend to want to shut the whole thing down.

reply to post by Kokatsi


I have to say, you are basically right on the money. It is corporate entities which are doing the most destruction of society, our culture, and our government.

The con of the divine right of Kings has been replaced by the divine right of wealth, by those suckered into believing the free market con.

The rise of the corporate institute began during the industrial revolution, the first example that stands out is Carnegie Steel, where steel production in the U.S. was concentrated under one company, making Carnegie the first super rich person, post European monarchy. People want to claim that Carnegie innovated cheap steel, but that it pure nonsense, Carnegie knew nothing about steel production. What Carnegie did, was lie to the Unions about how much he believed in the rights of unions, getting them to develop the process for making cheap steel, and then he stabbed them in the back. Carnegie was just another con artist, who managed to be in the right location at the right time. Since then, numerous others have followed his example.

The bigger factor is that in the early industrial revolution, large amounts of capital was required for mass production, this requirement no longer exists. Eventually, market forces will win out, but it won't be pretty.

Currently, our economic system operates entirely on debt. It is no longer a market system, because there is no trade of goods or services, just an exchange of a promise to pay. The system is completely unsustainable, because it depends on constant growth, thus we have created this disposable society were nothing has any real worth, so everything is disposable. The pattern of repetition is quite clear, debt rises until it consumes so much of peoples incomes, that they can no longer pay their bills, and then the whole system collapses.

The fed res act in 1913 slowed down the boom and bust process, but longer booms only lead to longer busts. Laws passed in the 1930ties under Roosevelt put regulations in place to prevent the debt bubbles from forming by restricting what banks and corporations were able to do. This worked as a reasonable solution to the flawed fed res act. This lead to fairly consistent strong economic growth for several decades, essentially all the way up until the last decade. At the end of the 1970ties, wealth in the U.S. was more evenly distributed than it has ever been.

Then enter the con of the free market. Starting with large tax cuts for the super rich in the U.S. fed gov debt began spiraling out of control. In the 90ties, under the con of the free market, restrictions were eased on finance markets, and the resulting bubbles and busts occurred that put us int the mess we are currently in, for which their are no easy solutions. Combined with free trade agreements, the U.S. economy, and the middle class, was pulled apart, but by doing this, corporations also destroyed their great consumer society, without which they can not survive.

And yet people are still clinging to the con of the free market, oblivious to the fact that what they support is what is destroying their economic opportunity. They buy into this tea party con, calling for more of what ails them.

What this means is that things are going to get worse before they get better. All their posturing about a debt limit is pure nonsense. Republicans, and that includes the TP, will continue to raise the debt ceiling no matter what, because without that continuous line of credit, the system will completely collapse. And the people who back the repubs are the ones who will loose the most in a system collapse.

Total collapse might be the only final solution. Elimination of super wealth, and a return to local production and sustainability, taking control out of the hands of the globalists, is what I think should be the final solution. With modern technology, we can easily produce all that we need with minimum work, people working twenty hour weeks on average. That is the way the Europeans are moving, and that is the way the U.S. should head, but as long as corporations continue to call the shots, they will never allow that to happen.

reply to post by nenothtu


A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, based on the idea of a balance of power between the branches of government. The U.S. Constitution is based on the writings of Jonathan Locke, who surprise surprise, is not well known, and they don't teach about him in school, when he should be considered the greatest contributor to modern democracy. A republic is headed by a Prime Minister, elected by the legislature, not a president elected by the people. We are not a republic.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You don't have automobile insurance?

Nope. Don't have an automobile, why would I buy the insurance for one any how?

Law was written long ago forcing people to deal with corporations, Obama is hardly the first.

Nope. Never ran into a law that forces me to buy something from a corporation simply for enjoying the honor of drawing breath.

As far as mob rule is concerned, that is exactly what the TPers are trying to do. Even though they don't have a majority, they are trying to force the rest of us to do what they want, or they pretend to want to shut the whole thing down.

If they're not in the the majority, then they can't be engaging in mob rule. Personally, I think they're wimps for NOT shutting the whole thing down. maybe it's just because they didn't have the votes to enforce a mob rule. Better luck next time to 'em, if that's the case.

They sure do seem to have shaken up the rich folks on Wall Street with just the suggestion, though. Imagine how the fat cats would've cried and wrung their paws if they'd got 'er done!

Originally posted by poet1b
It is corporate entities which are doing the most destruction of society, our culture, and our government.

I rather think it's more the people who are doing business with those corporations, fostering and supporting their efforts, who are allowing the damage - more so than even the corporations themselves. A dog will behave like a dog, and a corporation will behave like a corporation. It's the enablers who support that who are allowing it to happen.

Currently, our economic system operates entirely on debt. It is no longer a market system, because there is no trade of goods or services, just an exchange of a promise to pay. The system is completely unsustainable, because it depends on constant growth, thus we have created this disposable society were nothing has any real worth, so everything is disposable. The pattern of repetition is quite clear, debt rises until it consumes so much of peoples incomes, that they can no longer pay their bills, and then the whole system collapses.

I agree with this, in the main. That's precisely the reason I got out of debt long ago. It IS unsustainable, and the longer it's propped up, the harder it's going to fall when it does. Since, as you observe, it's no longer really a market based system, the term "free market" is essentially meaningless.

Total collapse might be the only final solution. Elimination of super wealth, and a return to local production and sustainability, taking control out of the hands of the globalists, is what I think should be the final solution.

Agreed, hence my disappointment when they failed to bring it down. When it finally crashes, it's going to crash hard, and there's really not anything to be done about it. I was in favor of a more controlled demolition, but there will be a demolition all the same, controlled or not.

With modern technology, we can easily produce all that we need with minimum work, people working twenty hour weeks on average. That is the way the Europeans are moving, and that is the way the U.S. should head, but as long as corporations continue to call the shots, they will never allow that to happen.

I have grave doubts that a 20 hour work week will get it done, but eventually we're going to find out, whether we like it or not.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by nenothtu

 

A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, based on the idea of a balance of power between the branches of government.

Negative. A democracy is populist, by definition. There are no "branched powers" to balance.

A republic is headed by a Prime Minister, elected by the legislature, not a president elected by the people. We are not a republic.

Nor is our president elected by the people. He is elected by the Electoral College, who may or may not take the votes of the people into account. The difference between "Prime Minister" and "President" is titular, linguistics only.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by nenothtu
Debt is somehow NOT debt if as government does it as opposed to an individual? What is the difference?

The difference is that it simply is not equatable. They are two completely distinct concepts.

For an individual debt is a real concrete variable.

The difference is that the U.S. Government can have a deficit but the United State's economy can still be healthy.

The Federal Government owes more money to the annual "Interest Payment" on its debt....than what gets collected in Federal Income Taxes.

I'd say it is a problem. You would be surprised if you knew how bad your military had to be cut due to this debt. The Navy sailing ghost ships...Air Force can't due it's nuclear mission......

Debt=Bad. There's consequences.

We couldn't go to war with a real country today. Pray they don't take advantage of us.

The difference is that the U.S. Government can have a deficit but the United State's economy can still be healthy. It is a logistical issue and not necessarily a problem in and of itself.

Negative...this is not what is happening out here.

There is only one marketplace out here..only one marketplace capable of producing goods and services...only one.

When Government raises the deficit..they then take this newly created monies and go out into this one marketplace which is out here and buy up goods and services for whatever reason government decides is worth their time and monies. We as the people who work and maintain this marketplace must now bid our monies against what is left in this "One Marketplace." There is now more monies chasing less goods.

Eventually prices must increase sufficient to absorb the new monies. This is called inflation.

To keep prices from rising to fast..the Government must tax monies away from us in order to cut down on our ability to bid for goods and services in this same "One Marketplace."

What this means is that we as Americans are the competition for Government in this "One Market place."

Government does not want our monies in taxes per se...what they want is for us not to be outbidding them in this "One Market place."

Every now and then when they raise the deficit to much they must also follow by raising taxes in order to conceal what they are really doing...outbidding the public in the "One Market Place" there is out here.

It is always the public which bears the burden for "Never" does Government cut back on their spending. Never!! All the talk about cutting back government spending on the part of Republicans and Democrats both is just fodder for gullible peoples. They will both spend unlimited if given the ability and if the public can remain dumb and ignorant of how and for what deficit money creation works.

The key is remembering that there is only One Market Place out here...not two or three or more...only one.

We as the public are the Governments competition in this one Market Place.

The purpose of all these taxes is to prevent the pubic from out bidding the Government in the One Marketplace there is out there...thus transferring more and more power and authority to Government and away from the people.

This is how Feudalism works...absolute power...ie...eventually ...back to Divine Right of Kings..ie..Government.

This is how a "Non Representative" government works...by outspending the public in everything and anything.

This is also how such an government buys the votes to keep and maintain this power against the productive sector of a nation. Against its own peoples.

You people..some of you are so dumb you are debating republicans and democrats...you cannot see that the Republicans are nothing more than Democrat Lite.

The tea party peoples are going to be making a mistake siding with the Republicans. But neither are the Democrats going to do this nation any good. For they will both be tax and spend...away from the productive sector of the economy.

The purpose of the Taxes is to hide how much the Government is out spending the private sector of the economy and the people out here. They have sent us to public schools to get us so dumbed down we cannot see this happening right in front of us.

A limited government means economically limited..fiscally limited ...otherwise government will outspend everyone and everything to the detriment of the private sector....and the private sector is the only producing sector..not government.

Orangetom

edit on 13-8-2011 by orangetom1999 because: (no reason given)