Exactly when did the liberal cancer reach America's shores?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're full of shit. You have no clue to our history. The liberals who were our founders were led by Federalists, who understood the only way to survive was through a strong central government.

1) Jefferson formed Republican Party in 1792 to defeat liberal Federalists.( Washington, Adams Hamilton)

2) He defeated them in 1800. He called it the Second American Revolution because it established that the Revolution had been against all strong central government, not just the strong central government of England.

3) Federalists or liberals were never heard from again in America until the communist inspired New Deal. Some of those liberals who spied for Stalin were hung.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact is our economy and society suffered most when we experimented with laissez faire.

way too stupid given that our economy has always been based on Laissez Faire. Commerce Clause was written to promote free trade, the opposite of liberal socialism.


Welcome to your first lesson in American History.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Ah, the good old days. Those liberals you site believed in limited government, low taxes, capitalism, small business, individual right to bear arms. The Liberals back then even believed in school prayer and Christmas displays in local government buildings. Bring back those liberals and send those Euro-style progressives in liberals'clothing packing to Canada, Latin America, or Europe.

You're full of shit. You have no clue to our history. The liberals who were our founders were led by Federalists, who understood the only way to survive was through a strong central government. The limited government types like Madison changed their minds pretty damn quick when the local militias lost the Battle of Bladensburg, leading to the burning of Washington. You also might want to read Hamilton's essay on what "general welfare" means. You also might want to read the articles of incorporation on things like the Erie and C&O canals.

What our founders knew, and you're too stupid to know, is that limited liability corporations needed to be regulated, so we would not be governed on the profit motive. The fact is our economy and society suffered most when we experimented with laissez faire. What scumbags like you want is to be governed by the most wealthy corporations, with no oversight. Sorry, I don't want to go back to the pre-progressive days of near slave labor and burning rivers.

You're personal attacks and level of ridicule would make Alinsky proud. To everyone else, your retort is pure vitriol with specious interpretations and intentions of historical events and figures. The evolution of a strong central government did not call for a break from a free market principals. Ever hear of The Industrial Revolution or are you ashamed of that, too?

There's much to be proud of and much to cause us shame in the industrial revolution. The fact remains that the people, through their government, put the reins on the worst abuses.

Putting aside your red herring, the fact is that our founders were leery about limited liability corporations. As far as free market principles goes, it often flies in the face of ethics and common decency. Limited liability corporations need to be regulated, and often for their own good.

If Obama were a real socialist, as the scum bag right suggests, he had low hanging fruit if he wanted capitalism to fail. The closest he came to socialism was to convert the preferred stock that Bush bought, into voting shares. He protected the taxpayer, rather than the Bush approach of giving bad players a free ride.

Why do right wing idiots want to try supply-side oligarchy again? How many times do they want to see it fail, at the expense of our society?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You also might want to read Hamilton's essay on what "general welfare" means.

why????

1) Hamilton and the Federalist philosophy were forever defeated by Republicans in 1800

2) even so, Hamilton did not propose any entitlements whatsoever

3) Madison's and Jefferson's view became the American point of view:

James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."


Madison: The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.




Jefferson: They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

 

[Charles_Main]

Sadly, it seems it has been here from day one, and failing from day one.


Free RepublicWhy the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism)

Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. Bradford served as Governor of Plymouth Colony from 1620 to 1647 and chronicled in great detail everything that happened in the colony.
By 1623, it was obvious the colony was barely producing enough corn to keep everyone alive. Fresh supplies from England were few and far between. Without some major change, the colony would face famine again. In his chronicle, Bradford described what was going wrong and how it was solved (pardon the King James English):

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

With weak crops and little hope of supply, the Pilgrims divided the parcels among the families and told them to grow their own food. They found that those who would pretend they couldn’t work due to infirmity, weakness or inability (sound familiar?) gladly went to work in the fields. Corn production increased dramatically and famine was averted because communism was eliminated. Bradford’s account doesn’t end here; he goes on to describe why he believed the communal system failed. Understanding the reasons for the failure is just as important, if not more important, than learning about the failure itself. Governor Bradford wrote:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter than the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.

The communal system failed because it treated the older and wiser the same way as the young and brash. It failed because it rewarded the less productive as much as the more productive. It failed because members of the community found that they could do less and still get the same benefit. All of these problems arose in a very religious community in which gluttony and laziness were considered sins and drunkenness was rare. How much more would communism fail in a larger society where such problems are rampant! By returning to a system in which the older and wiser are respected, and by reorganizing so that one’s benefit was directly tied to his production, the Pilgrims ensured the survival of their colony. Governor Bradford, however, ultimately attributes the failure of the “common cause” to something much deeper:

JamestownWhen US tried Communism [ History of Jamestown: 1607 to 1611 ])

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

Was Always with us, but it gained in Popularity in the 30's and again in the 60's big time.

 

[Charles_Main]

You're full of shit. You have no clue to our history. The liberals who were our founders were led by Federalists, who understood the only way to survive was through a strong central government. The limited government types like Madison changed their minds pretty damn quick when the local militias lost the Battle of Bladensburg, leading to the burning of Washington. You also might want to read Hamilton's essay on what "general welfare" means. You also might want to read the articles of incorporation on things like the Erie and C&O canals.

What our founders knew, and you're too stupid to know, is that limited liability corporations needed to be regulated, so we would not be governed on the profit motive. The fact is our economy and society suffered most when we experimented with laissez faire. What scumbags like you want is to be governed by the most wealthy corporations, with no oversight. Sorry, I don't want to go back to the pre-progressive days of near slave labor and burning rivers.

You're personal attacks and level of ridicule would make Alinsky proud. To everyone else, your retort is pure vitriol with specious interpretations and intentions of historical events and figures. The evolution of a strong central government did not call for a break from a free market principals. Ever hear of The Industrial Revolution or are you ashamed of that, too?

There's much to be proud of and much to cause us shame in the industrial revolution. The fact remains that the people, through their government, put the reins on the worst abuses.

Putting aside your red herring, the fact is that our founders were leery about limited liability corporations. As far as free market principles goes, it often flies in the face of ethics and common decency. Limited liability corporations need to be regulated, and often for their own good.

If Obama were a real socialist, as the scum bag right suggests, he had low hanging fruit if he wanted capitalism to fail. The closest he came to socialism was to convert the preferred stock that Bush bought, into voting shares. He protected the taxpayer, rather than the Bush approach of giving bad players a free ride.

Why do right wing idiots want to try supply-side oligarchy again? How many times do they want to see it fail, at the expense of our society?

LLC's enable Economic Growth. Far less people would put up Capital and take risks, if they could not hide behind LLC legal Protection.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You're full of shit. You have no clue to our history. The liberals who were our founders were led by Federalists, who understood the only way to survive was through a strong central government. The limited government types like Madison changed their minds pretty damn quick when the local militias lost the Battle of Bladensburg, leading to the burning of Washington. You also might want to read Hamilton's essay on what "general welfare" means. You also might want to read the articles of incorporation on things like the Erie and C&O canals.

What our founders knew, and you're too stupid to know, is that limited liability corporations needed to be regulated, so we would not be governed on the profit motive. The fact is our economy and society suffered most when we experimented with laissez faire. What scumbags like you want is to be governed by the most wealthy corporations, with no oversight. Sorry, I don't want to go back to the pre-progressive days of near slave labor and burning rivers.

You're personal attacks and level of ridicule would make Alinsky proud. To everyone else, your retort is pure vitriol with specious interpretations and intentions of historical events and figures. The evolution of a strong central government did not call for a break from a free market principals. Ever hear of The Industrial Revolution or are you ashamed of that, too?

There's much to be proud of and much to cause us shame in the industrial revolution. The fact remains that the people, through their government, put the reins on the worst abuses.

Putting aside your red herring, the fact is that our founders were leery about limited liability corporations. As far as free market principles goes, it often flies in the face of ethics and common decency. Limited liability corporations need to be regulated, and often for their own good.

If Obama were a real socialist, as the scum bag right suggests, he had low hanging fruit if he wanted capitalism to fail. The closest he came to socialism was to convert the preferred stock that Bush bought, into voting shares. He protected the taxpayer, rather than the Bush approach of giving bad players a free ride.

Why do right wing idiots want to try supply-side oligarchy again? How many times do they want to see it fail, at the expense of our society?

- Capitalism can never be completely dead in a socialist economy. Even among communists, some them are the world's greatest capitalists. The question is do socialists permit capitalism among the masses?

- JFK was a supply-sider. Reagan implemented it. Johnson was a redistributor of wealth. How successful are his 45 year old Great Sociiety Programs? Do you have metrics and results or are you simply going to call everyone idiots for not throwing enough money at the program?

- Big Business needs to be regulated..... as does Big Government, Big Union, Big Journalism, Big Environment, Big Academia, Big Community Organizing, Big Lobby. The greatest form of regulation comes through a pure system of checks and balances which is regulated by a Free Society.

 

[Staidhup]

As for liberals, the founding fathers who fought against monarchical rule were viewed to be revolutionaries, along with the likes of Adam Smith, John Locke...they were considered liberal in their time, however, today's interpretation of liberal is one who supports centralized planning, and total economic control, ruled buy a self anointed elite class of enlightened intelligentsia. Liberalism, socialism, progressive movement,... all have their roots originating in the late 19th century (1850's or so) with the writings of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, and others. In the late 19th century the wealthy sent their children to Europe for higher education, and they imported liberalism as we know it into America. The first progressive to occupy the White House was Wilson who was enamored with the progressive movement that was storming Europe. America rejected centralized control until FDR and his new deal. A stacked supreme court and favorable liberal interpretation of constitutional law in the case of Wickard V. Filburn paved the way for the government to gain further control, at the expense of state rights, and personal freedoms.

 

[Staidhup]

For those that wish to be told how to wipe their ass, provided for from cradle to grave, should think of the wonders and benefits available if one was to immigrate to Europe. heck Germany has a skilled labor shortage of magnanimous proportion.

 

[francoHFW]

For those that wish to be told how to wipe their ass, provided for from cradle to grave, should think of the wonders and benefits available if one was to immigrate to Europe. heck Germany has a skilled labor shortage of magnanimous proportion.

Jeebus what a dumbazz dupe.

Answer to OP? About 1770.

 

[Staidhup]

Only one problem with the 1770's the meaning and interpretation of liberal changed in the 19th century, furthermore, no one in 1770, regardless of where they lived expected a free ride, they worked.

 

[francoHFW]

Only one problem with the 1770's the meaning and interpretation of liberal changed in the 19th century, furthermore, no one in 1770, regardless of where they lived expected a free ride, they worked.

The only thing that changed was circumstances in the 19th century.. In this case the end of the Frontier, and the industrial revolution and the rise of robber barons and the corrupt GOP under Grant, so Liberals started to worry about the rights of workers, pollution, liar and cheater gov't, etc etc.

Some revisionist historians think the Pubs just wanted the Civil War to get a hold of the industrial complex, and crush the farmers...

Now we have ANOTHER corruption and cronyism Pub DEPRESSION, so the GOP Propaganda Machine gets the dupes like you to blame the Dems holding the bag of SHYTTE, and the victims. Change the channel.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now we have ANOTHER corruption and cronyism Pub DEPRESSION, :

actually dear our greatest economists and newspapers on left and right agree the liberal government caused the current depression


"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"



who can say with a straight face that liberal Fan/Fred and Federal Reserve didn't cause it???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sadly, it seems it has been here from day one, and failing from day one.


Free RepublicWhy the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism)

Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. Bradford served as Governor of Plymouth Colony from 1620 to 1647 and chronicled in great detail everything that happened in the colony.
By 1623, it was obvious the colony was barely producing enough corn to keep everyone alive. Fresh supplies from England were few and far between. Without some major change, the colony would face famine again. In his chronicle, Bradford described what was going wrong and how it was solved (pardon the King James English):

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

With weak crops and little hope of supply, the Pilgrims divided the parcels among the families and told them to grow their own food. They found that those who would pretend they couldn’t work due to infirmity, weakness or inability (sound familiar?) gladly went to work in the fields. Corn production increased dramatically and famine was averted because communism was eliminated. Bradford’s account doesn’t end here; he goes on to describe why he believed the communal system failed. Understanding the reasons for the failure is just as important, if not more important, than learning about the failure itself. Governor Bradford wrote:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter than the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.

The communal system failed because it treated the older and wiser the same way as the young and brash. It failed because it rewarded the less productive as much as the more productive. It failed because members of the community found that they could do less and still get the same benefit. All of these problems arose in a very religious community in which gluttony and laziness were considered sins and drunkenness was rare. How much more would communism fail in a larger society where such problems are rampant! By returning to a system in which the older and wiser are respected, and by reorganizing so that one’s benefit was directly tied to his production, the Pilgrims ensured the survival of their colony. Governor Bradford, however, ultimately attributes the failure of the “common cause” to something much deeper:

JamestownWhen US tried Communism [ History of Jamestown: 1607 to 1611 ])

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote of the Jamestown immigrants, “The settlers did not have even a modified interest in the soil … . Everything produced by them went into the store, in which they had no proprietorship.” The result as Bruce wrote would be what anyone who has any knowledge of human nature would expect, men, even the most energetic, refused to work.

Phillip A. Bruce, a late 19th century US historian, wrote

calling US socialist before socialism was discovered?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The pubs, who live in the back pocket of Big Insurance companies have made price fixing possible.

too stupid but perfectly 100% liberal!! health insurance is not purchased across state lines like tooth paste and most goods and services in our economy because Democrats made competition illegal in health insurance with the McCarron Furguson Act.

In point of fact, the Affordable Care Act forces competition.

perfectly stupid!!! more liberal socialist regulation always will cause less competition. BO had 2 communist parents and is openly for single payer and no competition.

 

[Erand7899]

Sooo, exactly what social programs are you righties whining about today...?

Obamacare for one, of course

IF Republicans had worked WITH Democrats, Obamacare would be a much better bill, and both parties could have shared the credit. Instead, we ended up with a watered-down bill to get it passed. I consider it better than nothing.

However, I strongly believe in Single-Payer. Anything would be better than having private insurance companies in the middle. I much prefer Uncle Sam as my middle man.

Earlier, you referred to Indians being the wards of government, and how that has left them in poverty. They also have government providing them their health care, and that is also a disaster. The common wisdom, on many reservations, is to ensure that if you are going to get sick, do it early in the year before the system runs out of money.

What makes you believe that government can do any better for the rest of the population?

 

[Erand7899]

Compare the economy of the fifties and sixties to any other time in history. Postwar Liberalism lead to America's most rapid economic growth. Because of the New Deal and strong Labor unions, American workers were paid higher than anyone in the world. And because the American worker had a lot of money, the capitalist was forced to invest, innovate, and add jobs to capture that money. You cannot have investment without demand. Capital literally moves around the globe looking for consumers with money. During the liberal postwar years, the government enacted policies that boosted demand, then business did everything possible to capture the money sitting in middle class wallets. (Eventually business captured Washington and was granted monopolies over every major sector so that they didn't have to compete/invest/risk to capture the consumer's money. The Government and special interests team-up and turned the consumer into a captive audience, stuck with only one or two health care options in most states)

But make no mistake. Reagan was proud of the postwar economy where the middle class had a lot of spending money. Reagan trumpeted this fact in his battle against the Soviets, pointing out that American workers lived better than any working class in history, and certainly better than workers in the Soviet System. And because government-subsidies kept the cost of public universities affordable, the middle class could send their children to college. This was another fact trumpeted by Reagan, who pointed out that the lower classes in other countries did not have access to higher education. Because of the high wages, generous benefits, and affordable education/health care, the mother of an American family didn't have to leave the home and join the workforce. She was able to stay home with the kids (-the most important job of all). Even the father had more time to be with the family. For this reason, it was heyday of American conservatism, that is, higher wages and cheap education meant parents had time to raise their kids, rather than leaving them in daycare, or worse: having them raised by TV or gangs or any other latch-key solution where the parents are too busy working to raise their children.

Behind the scenes, however, something interesting was happening. Business was getting sick of paying such high wages and exorbitant benefits. And the wealthy were sick of the tax burden associated with a vibrant, well educated middle class and upward mobility. They no longer wanted the government to invest in the middle class; rather, they wanted no-bid contracts and bridges to nowhere. They wanted dirt cheap 3rd world labor. They wanted to pay pennies a day for labor and not have to worry about dumping toxin rivers - they craved the 3rd world. So they approached Reagan and quietly asked for access to all those dictator run nations that Reagan called evil. Reagan obliged. He busted unions and made it easier for business to ship jobs to places where workers lived in sewage and made pennies a day. (Every president after him, including Clinton, followed his model of helping the private sector sell the American worker down river).

Since the 80s, American wages have remained stagnant or gone down. In order to keep people consuming (so the domestic economy could stay afloat), Washington had to expand the credit for the lower classes. [This is why we all started receiving 3 credit cards a week in the 80s. The banks had to fill the gap created by the shipping of jobs overseas] We went from a pre-Reagan economy of wage-based consumption to a post-Reagan economy where it became increasingly necessary for American families to go into debt in order to keep pace. We've been on a 30 year spending spree. Morning in America was brought to you by American Express, Master Card, and Visa. Don't take my word for it, research what happened to household debt starting in the 80s. After shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets, the American worker needed more credit. Problem is, once you start fueling consumption with borrowing, it takes more and more borrowing to break even (because your debt begins to claim more and more of your earnings. Eventually, you have to harvest the last thing left with any value - your home. See George Bush 2002-2006 when the American home was turned into an ATM in order to fuel a dead economy).

How do Republicans feel about Reagan's decision to help business pursue cheap labor in 3rd world countries? How do Republicans feel about the fact that the only way those jobs are coming back is if American workers underbid 3rd world labor markets - and work for pennies a day, which won't be sufficient enough to pay a heating bill, much less rent.

How do Republicans feel about the fact that American business boosted profits by cannibalizing American Labor - and the result is that we have one group of people wealthy enough to buy government, while the other group has become a permanent underclass, some of whom are fed boogieman stories about socialism.

A country dies when a small group of interests has all the wealth and political power. And it dies when the population is mislead about who truly owns government.

The special interests which run the country tend to scream Socialism when their concentrated power over economy/politics is challenged. It's a joke. Everyone knows business owns government rather than other way around. Why do you think Eli Lilly and Goldman Sachs and Halliburton pour trillions into the political system? Why do you think they invest billions into removing congressmen who won't protect their special interests?

Reagan and his followers (Clinton among them) promised jobs - yet, right after making the promise, they quietly laid the foundation to get rid of those jobs. Why doesn't Talk Radio talk about globalization and the destruction of American jobs? Why don't Republican voters demand more of their pundits? Why do they listen to someone like Limbaugh or Hannity who never mentions that big business - the private sector - has a more loyal relationship to communist China than this country. Where do you think all of Walmart's goods are made? The private sector - the job creators - don't care about America - they have been steadily shipping jobs out of this country since Reagan.

Reagan fought the Cold War against communism, but a communist, state controlled economy ended up with all the manufacturing jobs - China, Walmart's greatest partner, and one of the biggest supporter of the Republican party. Walmart sells American flags made by a state run, dictator lead economy. Do Republicans understand that one of the major achievements of their party was to serve private profit by giving capital the mobility to get in bed with tyrannical, unfree, planned economies? Free Market? You fucking morons. Turn off talk radio. Our economy is sustained by Communist China and Terrorist Saudi Arabia. (Are Republicans really this stupid? Don't they understand that all the socialism talk is a distraction fed to them by Republicans in Washington. Please wake up. You are being lied to by government. You are given simple cliches about freedom and markets that are simplistic and absurd. We can no longer afford your ignorance)

The private sector owns government and media. They changed the laws so they could replace American jobs with 3rd world jobs. Then they used media to convince morons that a fiction called government and socialism was responsible for the country's demise.

Obama doesn't run the country. The blessed private sector owns and runs the country. If you want to change things, you have to address concentrated power wherever it lies. You have to address the rise of private wealth, which is the new Stalin.

And stop telling us about the free market. It's a myth designed for idiots who listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and FOX News. The greatest achievement of the free market was to make unfree, dictator economies more powerful by sending all the jobs to China and getting all the energy from terrorists. What do you think Reagan was doing in El Salvador? He was "fixing" the political conditions so American brands could get T-shirts made for pennies by workers who live in mud huts. Capitalism and Freedom? Are you serious? Capitalism wants cheap labor and zero environmental regulations, which comes from oppressed 3rd world dictator-run countries. We're not spreading freedom in the 3rd world. Study Reagan's relationship to Pinochet or Hussein. Study Carter's relationship to the Shaw. We take care of dictators who give us access to cheap labor and raw material. Turn off talk radio and go to college. Please. Capitalism doesn't care about freedom. Freedom is a moral externality. Capitalism cares about profit, and it has no problem creating a system of dictator run oppressed work forces in order to get the cheapest possible labor/operating costs.

Your lecture has a few problems with cause and effect, but that is standard with liberal/socialist beliefs.

By the end of 1945, most of the advanced nations of the earth, with the exceptions of the United States of America and Canada, were virtually destroyed. We had close to a monopoly on production, and a whole world full of customers. That is why we prospered to such an extent in the Fifties and Sixties. We had little competition from foreign entities.

Since the gist of the rest of your rant is based on the false assumptions of your first paragraph, that pretty well covers it. Government is necessary to ensure that the free enterprise system stays honest, but any regulation beyond that is a drag on business and could not possibly help an economy.

labor is a commodity, not unlike any other commodity. It is worth exactly what buyers are willing to pay to get it. No more, no less. Government interference in that market, like government interference in any market, distorts the market and results in unintended consequences, that hurt some workers for the benefit of others.

 

[AnonymousIV]

The right needs to pick a candidate and elect him to president and let him run the country, instead of running around, trying to help him fix it.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

We "righties" are most concerned by the fail of our republic, a once great, shining, new idea, into the shards and breaths of a fully socialist democracy......

-$15,560,600,000,000 and counting........

Behold,

Robert

How much of that debt is the result of giving tax cuts to the wealthy, financed by debt? Isn't insanity well defined as doing the same stupid thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

I will try and help you on this. That debt amount so accrued has nothing to do with party affiliation, it is seamless across party lines. It is accrued and growing at a death inducing rate at the total guilt of the body politic and there are no exceptions. Obama has added 5.2 Trillion to this.

What it means is, that at -$20,000,000,000,000 it becomes a mathematical certainty it will not, cannot, be paid down, ever.

We are now roughly 28 months from that date/debt amount.

Hope that is better.

Robert

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That debt amount so accrued has nothing to do with party affiliation, it is seamless across party lines.

too stupid by 1000!!! Republicans have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's. Democrats have killed them all!! What planet do you live on?