The 9-12 Project

[Jon]

Why do you think we got rid of all the GOP encumbents? It was clear, even in a lot of very red states, that these guys had to go.

Therein lies your problem. You think Democrats are the cure. They are just as much the disease as Republicans are.

And look at how loyal you idiots are. As corrupt as Ted Stevens was, he still almost won in the very very red state of Alaska.

I'm loyal to no one except myself. See how quickly I dumped McCain after he supported the bailout?

It almost seems as if you right wingers know that the rich are at the core of the problem, but you don't really think it is a problem. This is the mystery I am trying to uncover. You seem to admit that the rich are at the core of the problem, but ONLY when you are suggesting that Dems are just as bad as Republicans.

And you only think the rich are the problem BECAUSE of Republicans.

But at last you and I are getting close to agreeing with each other on who the real problem is. You just can't admit it yet.

No, it is you who cannot admit it. Stop blaming a party, start blaming the guilty.

They certainly got to Clinton. But see how you bash him? Why? He was a very centrist president.

Sorry, I liked Clinton. Always have, always will. I've said this numerous times, ad nausem. You just don't listen. Again, you HAVE to paint me as a die hard Republican because you don't know how to handle someone who isn't.

So the next thing I want you to admit is that you are just as much of a partisan hack as I am.

Except I'm not. I voted for Kerry, I voted for Clinton in the primaries, and I didn't vote for McCain. I have never voted for a Republican, actually. Why would I admit to something that I am not? Why would I admit to something that my posts have consistently proven to be untrue?

I think you just believe the GOP are the lesser of two evils, just like I think the Dems are the lesser of two evils.

Wrong. I think both are disgustingly evil. There are actually more Democrats I agree with than Republicans.

I never said I love the Dems. I just know for certain that I do not approve of the GOP.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

And you defend the GOP

Prove it. You can't, because I don't. Thanks.

and everything they did for the rich.

Wrong again.

But the second the Dems get in charge and you see them doing the same things, you use it to bash the Dems?

Of course I do, but not anymore than I ever bashed the Republicans. Dirty politics is dirty politics. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, they can all fuck off and die for all I care.

 

[sealybobo]

Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

Providing a good that the public wants/needs IS serving the public interest.

Thomas Jefferson also never realized the possibility of a global economy.

Thomas Jefferson never realized the possibility of a global economy? That's wrong. They knew about protectionism, isolationism and trading with other countries.

Back then the argument was, "should we be a country made up of thousands of small economies or should we become and industrialized nation".

But right from the moment we gained independence, the rich over in England came over and started taking over via "capitalism" and bribing our politicians. This is nothing new. The railroad barons, newpapers, bankers, oil men, etc. It all came from England.

Typical right wing thing to do. Quote the founding fathers and the constitution all day everyday, but then when they say something that warns against corporations getting too powerful, refer to the constitution as, "that old piece of paper".

Is the Constitution now obsolete?

PS. Providing a good to the public does the public no good if the only people making any money are foreign corporations and their slave labor. That's what is going on with America right now. We don't make anything. We have been warned about becoming a country that doesn't manufacture anything anymore. Another mistake Mother England made, and now we are making it too. Because you only pick and choose the warnings you heed.

I totally understand that government can be part of the problem. Do you understand the mega rich/corpoations ARE the people who caused this problem? Or do you still think it was Freddy/Fanny?

Try thinking more along the lines of, "is the product safe, is the company a monopoly, etc.

Yes, providing a cheap good that the public wants is a way of serving the public interest. But there are other factors that matter too.

Are those the only two you can come up with? Then you fail!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Why do you think we got rid of all the GOP encumbents? It was clear, even in a lot of very red states, that these guys had to go.

Therein lies your problem. You think Democrats are the cure. They are just as much the disease as Republicans are.

And look at how loyal you idiots are. As corrupt as Ted Stevens was, he still almost won in the very very red state of Alaska.

I'm loyal to no one except myself. See how quickly I dumped McCain after he supported the bailout?



And you only think the rich are the problem BECAUSE of Republicans.



No, it is you who cannot admit it. Stop blaming a party, start blaming the guilty.



Sorry, I liked Clinton. Always have, always will. I've said this numerous times, ad nausem. You just don't listen. Again, you HAVE to paint me as a die hard Republican because you don't know how to handle someone who isn't.



Except I'm not. I voted for Kerry, I voted for Clinton in the primaries, and I didn't vote for McCain. I have never voted for a Republican, actually. Why would I admit to something that I am not? Why would I admit to something that my posts have consistently proven to be untrue?



Wrong. I think both are disgustingly evil. There are actually more Democrats I agree with than Republicans.



The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.



Prove it. You can't, because I don't. Thanks.

and everything they did for the rich.

Wrong again.

But the second the Dems get in charge and you see them doing the same things, you use it to bash the Dems?

Of course I do, but not anymore than I ever bashed the Republicans. Dirty politics is dirty politics. It doesn't matter which side is doing it, they can all fuck off and die for all I care.

I will look to see if you are who you say you are.

To me, i think of Jsanders as one of the biggest GOP defenders.

My bad if I'm wrong.

Does someone else post under your name on your computer? Some right wing radical?

 

[Jon]

Typical right wing thing to do. Quote the founding fathers and the constitution all day everyday, but then when they say something that warns against corporations getting too powerful, refer to the constitution as, "that old piece of paper".

Last I checked, it was you who brought up the founding fathers, not I.

I totally understand that government can be part of the problem. Do you understand the mega rich/corpoations ARE the people who caused this problem? Or do you still think it was Freddy/Fanny?

Freddy/Fanny ARE part of "the rich."

Yes, providing a cheap good that the public wants is a way of serving the public interest. But there are other factors that matter too.

Are those the only two you can come up with? Then you fail!!!

It takes only one point to prove a theory wrong. Why should I bother making a list?

 

[Jon]

I will look to see if you are who you say you are.

To me, i think of Jsanders as one of the biggest GOP defenders.

My bad if I'm wrong.

Does someone else post under your name on your computer? Some right wing radical?

Sorry, friend, you won't find any posts of mine defending the GOP. I don't support parties or politicians, I support ideas.

Your problem is you can't comprehend a third train of thought. You have only two: with me or against me. Just like Bush and Co. did. If I don't reiterate your ignorant filth, I'm automatically against you and automatically part of the GOP. Sorry, that is not how it works. You and I have had this conversation a few dozen times, and it's really sad that you still don't get it. But it's okay for me, because it further proves just how biased and ignorant you are.

 

[sealybobo]

Typical right wing thing to do. Quote the founding fathers and the constitution all day everyday, but then when they say something that warns against corporations getting too powerful, refer to the constitution as, "that old piece of paper".

Last I checked, it was you who brought up the founding fathers, not I.

I totally understand that government can be part of the problem. Do you understand the mega rich/corpoations ARE the people who caused this problem? Or do you still think it was Freddy/Fanny?

Freddy/Fanny ARE part of "the rich."

Yes, providing a cheap good that the public wants is a way of serving the public interest. But there are other factors that matter too.

Are those the only two you can come up with? Then you fail!!!

It takes only one point to prove a theory wrong. Why should I bother making a list?

Let me explain how you are partially wrong. A company can provide a cheap good that the public wants and yes, you could say that the company is serving a public interest. But that very same company might also not be serving a public interest.

How about a drug dealer? He too serves a public interest. But he also does not serve a public interest.

What if the products are all made in China? Have you ever read the Art of War? Not as it applies to military, but business. I can not discuss this with you intelligently if you refuse to admit it is a problem that America doesn't make anything anymore. And that includes Boeing losing to Airbus. Remember that? It was ok that auto manufacturing was going overseas, but then all of the sudden Boing lost to Airbus and that was going too far?

Well at least some right winger/freemarket/capitalist/libertarians understand that "free trade" can go too far.

Remember this March 2008? Northrop Grumman gets $40B deal to replace Air Force tankers - CNN.com

Do you not see a problem with America not manufacturing anything any more?

Or how about when Americans no longer own America?

When Americans No Longer Own America

These companies provide a cheap product that consumers want too. But there are negatives too. All the profits leave the country.

Do you understand the negatives?

 

[sealybobo]

I will look to see if you are who you say you are.

To me, i think of Jsanders as one of the biggest GOP defenders.

My bad if I'm wrong.

Does someone else post under your name on your computer? Some right wing radical?

Sorry, friend, you won't find any posts of mine defending the GOP. I don't support parties or politicians, I support ideas.

Your problem is you can't comprehend a third train of thought. You have only two: with me or against me. Just like Bush and Co. did. If I don't reiterate your ignorant filth, I'm automatically against you and automatically part of the GOP. Sorry, that is not how it works. You and I have had this conversation a few dozen times, and it's really sad that you still don't get it. But it's okay for me, because it further proves just how biased and ignorant you are.

No, all your arguments seem to toe the GOP line. You may not consider yourself one, but you sure do swallow all their phylosophies.

You still have the "every man for himself" mentality.

And you are anti social programs that help poor people.

But you defend $20 million dollar ceo pay and you think $35 hr for a line worker is too much.


Am I wrong?

 

[WillowTree]

Hey Sealy -- what's your suggestion for fixing America? Be specific and be detailed.

Ron Paul, Is America Really Going Bankrupt?

We take back the Federal Reserve. That way rich bankers don't control our economy and our debt isn't collecting interest.

And get rid of lobbyists. Sorry cannot do it obamalama hired them all

Corporations should pay all the taxes, not the workers. No income tax. Won't be any corporations
If we need a bridge, charge a bridge tax. When the bridge is built, end the bridge tax.

The Income tax was to pay for WW2.

Pay go would be nice.

Stay within the budget.

Include the Iraq war in your budget so we know what you are really spending.

Raise taxes on the rich to pay off the debt. When the debt is paid off, they will still be rich. Go figure. Won't be any rich

Bring manufacturing jobs back home. won't be any corporations you ran them outta dodge
Raise wages Cannot do it, there won't be jobs

Throw illegals out new,, that's unAmerican ask pop up

Raise SS benefits ?????

Nationalize medicine but you can buy better than the basic so still capitalistic We don't have any money, and you ran all the corporations and rich off so there are no jobs eitherThen when everything is good, lower taxes on everyone.

What's Plan B?

 

[Jon]

No, all your arguments seem to toe the GOP line. You may not consider yourself one, but you sure do swallow all their phylosophies.

Not even close. You seem to equate fiscal conservatism with the GOP. Why?

You still have the "every man for himself" mentality.

I wasn't aware that was a GOP trait, but it's true. I believe people should take responsibility for their own well-being, and I do not believe that the able should be forced to take care of the unwilling.

And you are anti social programs that help poor people.

No. I am against social programs that coddle the poor. Helping the poor and giving handouts to the poor are two separate things. It's that whole "give a man a fish" mantra. Democrats don't believe in teaching anyone how to fish.

But you defend $20 million dollar ceo pay and you think $35 hr for a line worker is too much.

I believe that people are paid what they are worth. If a company deems their CEO worthy of $20 million a year, that's what they are worth. If a company deems a line worker worthy of $35 an hour, that is what they are worth. It's all subjective to the industry and to the company. If someone doesn't like their pay, they can look for better pay somewhere else. But whining about not being paid enough will get them nowhere.

I think any company that pays a CEO $20 million is out of its collective mind. But, if it is able and willing, then the CEO deserves it.

 

[jeffrockit]

This country is headed into very dangerous waters . . . the Constitution is being shredded . . . bankruptcy of the country is on the horizon . . . . the government wants it's paws in and on everything and everyone.

Everyone who is disgusted with what our government is doing and how they are doing it should check out this site. Whether you're R, D, L or I -- doesn't matter. Please - for five minutes - get over the fact that Glenn Beck has started this. Just go take a look.

It is meant to unite people into the mindset that we had on 9/12/01. We weren't a nation of Republicans or Democrats . . . we were a nation of united Americans. The government is busy, busy setting one party against another . . . when the real fight is government vs. America.

Click on the Mission Statement to get a feel for what this project is trying to accomplish. Click on Stand up and Lead, then your state, to see where local meetings are being held. None to be found in your area? Start one. If you click on the Members and Counting link on the right on this page, you can sign up for comments/discussions. I found the following letter from one of the members and thought I'd pass it along. The poster's comment to the Senator are what many, many Americans are feeling towards our government.

"Here was a response for Congressman Simpson (R) from Idaho to my demand that no more earmarks be added to spending bills:

Eliminating any one of those projects would not have reduced federal spending by one penny – the money would have instead gone to another project in a different state or to a federal bureaucracy to be spent at its discretion.

Here was my response to him:

Representative Simpson,
You say that if you wouldn't have brought the earmark money, millions of dollars by your own admission, back to Idaho that the money would have been spent elsewhere here are your words:

Eliminating any one of those projects would not have reduced federal spending by one penny – the money would have instead gone to another project in a different state or to a federal bureaucracy to be spent at its discretion.

. That is exactly the WRONG answer. If every representative and congressman stopped earmarks no money would be spent, money YOU don't create but take from us, the taxpayer. You just don't get it. You don't point to another wrong to justify your wrong. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right. It's called principles sir. You and every member of congress that we elect must have principles. It's what our Founding Fathers had but what we find so rarely today. I'm frankly appalled at your response.
There is a stirring in America today. People like me are fed up with both parties. We are meeting weekly throughout the nation, we are talking on the web and sharing e-mails. We are people that have values and principles, the same values and principles that our Founding Fathers have. Slowly but surely both political parties have lost those values and principles and all you care about is power. You shouldn't be worried about the big contributors to your campaign but those that elected you into office. Change is coming sir. It's much the same as when the Sons of Liberty met in taverns over 200 years ago. We, the people, are waking up and we will take back our government. I, like my forefathers, will commit my life, my fortune and my sacred honor in this new cause of freedom. Can you hear it?

Sincerely,
Karl Spencer
Veteran and Proud American "


Just thought I'd pass this along. One voice won't be heard; a nation of voices will.

THE912PROJECT.COM

Great post! That is exactly what I was thinking when I heard Simpson say that. Instead of saying that someone else would spend the money, how about reducing the size of the budget which would reduce the earmarks. The (our) money should only be spent on growing jobs and infrastructure with the economy in the shape it is in.

 

[jeffrockit]

Hey Sealy -- what's your suggestion for fixing America? Be specific and be detailed.

Start with an absolute limit per citizen on how much money they can donate to any politician or any political party.

Completely end any PAC money contributions.

ABsolutely NO corporate campiagn contributions.

Limits on total campaign spending and limits on campaign advertisments.

Absolutely NO campaign funding or political party funding from any foreign national or foreign corporation or business.

An increase in the number of House of Representatives such that each REP has 30,000 constiutents. (There'd give us a HoR of about 6,000 Reps, BTW)

An increase in the number of Senators to 6 per state.

There...that's a start to putting the DEMOCRATIC back into our democratic republic.

Public execution of any pols taking bribes, and any bribers giving them, too.

It really is treason to fuck with an election. They need to make it a serious offense.

And how about real campaign finance reform. So lets say 100 people qualify. They should each get x amount of dollars and airtime so it isn't about who has more money.

And no paying for commercials. This is one thing that proves the media is just another bad corporation. They want to sell advertisement spots, so they like it that politicians spend millions on radio tv ads.

And no more SWIFT BOATERS. They can be on the net, but not on tv/radio. Liars.

The tv and radio are public airwaves. These candidates get airtime free of charge.

So Glen Beck's little movement is just about cutting social spending on American/In America.

He didn't cry in 2004-2006 when the GOP broke pork records.

But now that its not Haloburton/Blackwater/Shell getting all the pork, Glen Beck wants to cry?

The GOP always come in and overspend/waste money while cutting rich people's taxes. That always causes a mess.

The Democrats are the responsible parent who comes in and insists that we pay our bills on time. No more maxxing out the credit card and just paying the minimum payment.

The rich people doing all the spending benefit from GOPanomics, but the rest of us end up picking up the bill.

Now the rich can show that they pay the majority of the taxes, and that is true.

But that doesn't mean they are paying enough.

They certainly didn't pay for Iraq.

And now Obama has to give America a facelift because the GOP ignored our infrastructure for 8 years, so clearly now would be a good time to undo Bush's unfair tax breaks.

But because the GOP put us in a recession, we can't raise their taxes now. So Obama is going to just let them expire in 2011. We should be out of the recession by then.

But they say the rich won't hire or spend any money if we raise their taxes. Bullshit. If the economy picks up, they'll hire more people to handle all the new business they get. And a good economy is the only way to increase wages.

Anyways, Republicans say you don't raise taxes during a recession, and we might be inclined to listen to them, if they would have listened to us when we told them you don't cut taxes during a time of war.

They didn't listen, and they bankrupted the treasury. I say the GOP did it on purpose. If they didn't do it on purpose, they sure are dumb sons of bitches, which I highly doubt.

But the people who vote for them are.

The Dems don't care about raising taxes as some are proven tax cheats. How about we fire all the tax cheats on both sides of the aisle before we start raising taxes and preaching that it is the patriotic thing to do in paying taxes.

 

[jeffrockit]

Hey Sealy -- what's your suggestion for fixing America? Be specific and be detailed.

Corporations should pay all the taxes, not the workers. No income tax.

Corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass the cost on to the consumer. Raising taxes on corporations (we already have one of the highest tax rates for corps than most countries) puts the burden on the middle class. From reading previous posts of yours,(excluding the wealth envy ones), the middle class needs to be helped, not hurt.
Not really a smart fix in the long run.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe if they all had the same amount of money to campaign with, we'd be able to decide who is the best candidate rather than who runs the best campaign. People can still support the candidate of their choice; just put a cap on the amount. Let the pols work within a specific budget. Oh wait, nix that . . . they don't know how. I don't equate limiting the amount one contributes to a candidate with limiting one's freedom of speech. By contributing you are exercising your freedom of speech.

No, if they all had the same amount of money to campaign with, then the Democrats would be plastered everywhere, and the Republicans would never be seen, because the media provides absolutely unfettered - and completely biased and fawning - campaign advertising for the Dems. Can you say, "Barack Obama"?

You explain to me why the Democrats should have unlimited campaign funding and advertising via the media while the Republicans - and other candidates, for that matter - are restricted. This is why, in my original post to Ed, I asked if he'd be willing to shred the "free press" part of the First Amendment to match the shredding of the "free speech" part. Why should one group get unlimited freedom if everyone doesn't? Or more to the point, why should ANYONE have their freedoms in this area limited?

If you agree that contributing is exercising your freedom of speech, then it follows that limiting the amount you can contribute is limiting the amount you can speak, aka limiting your freedom of speech. How would you like it if I said, "You can post your opinions freely on this board . . . but only five posts a day!"

Never said anything at all about dems or repubs having unlimited campaign funding/media . . . was actually implying the opposite.

I never said you said it. The whole point of mentioning it was that you DON'T seem to realize it exists, and have the odd notion that you can limit campaigns to actual cash contributions. It's a cute and very naive idea, and would have the effect in practice of making an already badly-tilted playing field into a complete shut-out for every candidate who wasn't a liberal Democrat. But hey, if you think democracy will really be served by a one-party, one-candidate-per-race-as-chosen-by-the-press system . . .

I think if each candidate worked within the same amount of money (budget) . . . then maybe the best candidate would win . . . . rather than the candidate who runs the biggest campaign. Limiting the amount one contributes isn't limiting their speech; it's leveling the playing field.

Sure, and if we all hold hands and wish really hard, the sky will be filled with rainbows and pink fluffy clouds.

You have yet to tell me how you limit campaigns to your cute little budgets and eliminate the tons of priceless advertising the media provides to its chosen candidates. Were you on Mars during the election last year, or what?

Limiting the amount of speech one can have, which is what you're doing when you're limiting the amount one can contribute to one's chosen candidate, is not only Unconstitutional, but it effectively eliminates the playing field altogether.

As for the media . . . . perhaps public pressure would be a way to change the bias they possess. I don't know. Any ideas?

Okay, seriously, do you live on this planet? Public pressure to change the media? Are you kidding? Their sales and circulation are already so badly in the toilet that US News and World Report has dropped from once-a-week issues to once-a-month, and major chains are selling off newspapers in smaller towns right and left. Ratings for every news program and channel except for Fox are plummeting. And anyone who was conscious during last year's election can see how much attention they're paying to this reaction.

I already told you my idea. Stop trying to shred the Constitution in the name of some childish little notion that you can make national political campaigns behave like elections for student body president. The problem isn't that "too much money is spent in campaigns" (I have no idea where people got such an idiotic notion, anyway) or "we need to limit the amount of campaign advertising so that people can choose the best candidate" (how they're supposed to do that if the candidate isn't advertised in anyone's guess). The problem is that as long as these people have the ability to control trilions of taxpayer dollars in the federal budget once they get into office, you are ALWAYS going to have scads of special interests trying to gain influence with them. Deal with the problem, not the symptom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Hey Sealy -- what's your suggestion for fixing America? Be specific and be detailed.

Corporations should pay all the taxes, not the workers. No income tax.

Corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass the cost on to the consumer. Raising taxes on corporations (we already have one of the highest tax rates for corps than most countries) puts the burden on the middle class. From reading previous posts of yours,(excluding the wealth envy ones), the middle class needs to be helped, not hurt.
Not really a smart fix in the long run.

I'm curious. First you say corporations should pay all the taxes instead of the workers, and then you admit that corporations don't pay taxes. They just pass them on to the consumers. In case you didn't notice, the consumers would be the same people as the workers. How do you propose to reconcile these two opposite positions you've taken?

 

[Old Rocks]

I got this in an email today:

This was an article from the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper on Sunday. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?" I thought this
was the BEST idea. I think this guy nailed it!

Dear Mr.President,
Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 in the work
force; pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations:

1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings -
Unemployment fixed.

2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.

3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage -
Housing Crisis fixed.

Hey, I like this! Still working at 65, and looking to move on retirement, this would open up some real oppertunitys for all. I could pay off the mortgages on the small properties I own, sell them for what is against them, giving some young families a real bargain, buy a small place, cash, in a rural environment, giving the economy a boost there. Then, I could afford to go back to school and finish my degree, and have money to do independent research.

Yessir, this would work for me, and it would only cost the government 40 trillion.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, all your arguments seem to toe the GOP line. You may not consider yourself one, but you sure do swallow all their phylosophies.

Not even close. You seem to equate fiscal conservatism with the GOP. Why?

You still have the "every man for himself" mentality.

I wasn't aware that was a GOP trait, but it's true. I believe people should take responsibility for their own well-being, and I do not believe that the able should be forced to take care of the unwilling.

And you are anti social programs that help poor people.

No. I am against social programs that coddle the poor. Helping the poor and giving handouts to the poor are two separate things. It's that whole "give a man a fish" mantra. Democrats don't believe in teaching anyone how to fish.

But you defend $20 million dollar ceo pay and you think $35 hr for a line worker is too much.

I believe that people are paid what they are worth. If a company deems their CEO worthy of $20 million a year, that's what they are worth. If a company deems a line worker worthy of $35 an hour, that is what they are worth. It's all subjective to the industry and to the company. If someone doesn't like their pay, they can look for better pay somewhere else. But whining about not being paid enough will get them nowhere.

I think any company that pays a CEO $20 million is out of its collective mind. But, if it is able and willing, then the CEO deserves it.

The pay is determined by the Board of Directors, mostly CEOs of other companies. This creates an incestous relationship that rewards incompetance with riches, and works against the interests of the company, the employees of the company, and the nation as a whole.

 

[Jon]

C'est la vie.

 

[immto]

Please review this blog post and get me any feedback you many have. I'm prepared to start a push on this once I have it finished if I feel I'll have enough support.

Is this really still our Country?