Obama is to Bush as FDR was to Hoover?

Users who are viewing this thread

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Since it became the ends you are using to justify the unconstitutional means used to get them.

Labor is the capital of the working class. The Capital class could not profit to the extent they do without labor. So please explain why it is constitutional to allow capital to exploit labor but unconstitutional for labor to organize and bargain for the best possible exchange rate and conditions for their labor?

Republicrat, not repub.

It's called political pragmatism. Something must be done to protect the working class from exploitation by the monied class. The Right only represents the monied class. I can't make it any simpler than that.

You will always stay in the same place until you take the chance to take a step away. Your statement dooms you (us all) to stay in the same situation until someone else does something. It's this dependence that the "Progressive" movement have thrust upon us.

I'm sorry, but we have been regressive, not progressive since about 1980 when Saint Ronnie Reagan accelerated deregulation of Wall Street banking and investment and reducing taxes on the top 1%. And I know that deregulation started before Reagan and continued with every administration and congrees as well. But the fact is that we are NOT being victimized by progressive political policy - to the contrary - it is conservatism and deregulation that brought us here.

More conservo-libertarianism will only serve the top 1% and continue to fuck the rest of us. So you are absolutely correct about staying in the same place. It's past time for a labor party to represent the majority of Americans and protect us from exploitation by the moneyed classes and the military industrial complex.
 
  • 63
    Replies
  • 1K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I'm sorry, but we have been regressive, not progressive since about 1980 when Saint Ronnie Reagan accelerated deregulation of Wall Street banking and investment and reducing taxes on the top 1%.
I'd say that Washington and it's corporate sponsors have been progressing quite nicely.

And I know that deregulation started before Reagan and continued with every administration and congrees as well. But the fact is that we are NOT being victimized by progressive political policy - to the contrary - it is conservatism and deregulation that brought us here.
Deregulation would ensure open competition. Are you prepared to say we've had that? I'm not. No, we've definitely had regulation, and the current political policy is to continue obeying the corporate sponsors wishes. Federal regulations have been used very effectively as a gate blocking any new competition from coming up from behind while clearing away any obstacles to their continued growth, including the consequences of taking risks.

More conservo-libertarianism will only serve the top 1% and continue to fuck the rest of us. So you are absolutely correct about staying in the same place. It's past time for a labor party to represent the majority of Americans and protect us from exploitation by the moneyed classes and the military industrial complex.
I don't know if you lump me into your "conservo-libertarian" category but it doesn't matter. I would welcome a real run for Congressional seats from both libertarians and your labor party. It would force wonderful change, no matter what happens.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
If conservatism has been the down fall then explain what it appears the only down times since Carter have been when democrats controlled congress. Or is it just a coinkidink. This latest downward spiral occurred in short order after Pelosi and Reid got in power.

And John please do not respond with the same old conservobot and talk radio crap. There is a reason conservatives think as they do. We don't need the talking points to believe what we believe in. And talking points are not a one sided issue. Both parties thrive on those sound bytes. One could make the opposite claim that all you listen to is the likes of Ed Shultz and the other leftists on radio and tv.

By the way when did liberal become a nasty word? Now the left call them progressives. I know there has been a progressive so called movement for ages but only til recently did that term get substituted for liberal. Is it because we are not the liberal country that the left likes to think we are? Too toxic a term?
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
If conservatism has been the down fall then explain what it appears the only down times since Carter have been when democrats controlled congress. Or is it just a coinkidink. This latest downward spiral occurred in short order after Pelosi and Reid got in power.

Average Americans like you and me having this argument over who is at fault is no accident Allen.

The eventual loss of control of the government by the people began in 1913 at Jekyll Island Georgia. That's when our currency was turned over to the private banking system under the name of the Federal Reserve - which has nothing federal to do with it. I suggest you spend more time studying that historical event and less time defending the conservatism that keeps all of us enslaved.

"Conservatism" is simply "conserving" what was done to us in 1913.

This is what has happened to us, and it began long ago:

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Think about it and it is simple. With the nations money supply in private hands, the corpratocracy saw a way to gain almost complete control with deregulation of industry. Carter, Reagan, Bush 1&2, and Clinton happily deregulated until we have the situation we face today.

Now, all they have to do is keep boogeymen and wedge issues alive for us to fight over and blame. Unions; religion; gun rights; and abortion to name 4 big ones.

And John please do not respond with the same old conservobot and talk radio crap. There is a reason conservatives think as they do. We don't need the talking points to believe what we believe in. And talking points are not a one sided issue. Both parties thrive on those sound bytes. One could make the opposite claim that all you listen to is the likes of Ed Shultz and the other leftists on radio and tv.

"Conservatives" think as they do because the Corpratocracy has the TRILLIONS required to get their message out. They have convinced you that those evil liberals that believe in living wages, universal health care and good working conditions for the masses are the problem, rather than the Federal Reserve, deregulated banks, union busting, wage reductions etc.

Why else would otherwise intelligent working Americans side with the top 1% who has stacked the economic system to benefit them at the demise of the small business and working class?

Anyone who is dependent on a paycheck from a job is foolish for supporting a system that devalues their labor and allows the wealthiest among us to hoard TRILLIONS and telling us we should be grateful for our gruel as the top 1% enjoys caviar on the backs of labor.

Why would otherwise intelligent small business operators vote for a political philosophy which empowers big business to the demise of small business? The taxation system favors big corporations over small business. How many small businesses do you know that pay zero taxes while getting huge tax subsidies from Joe Taxpayer. Try this on for size:

According to compensation survey administrator PayScale in 2010, the average income of small business owners varies widely depending upon their level of experience. For example, small business owners with less than one year of experience in running an organization earn an annual salary ranging from $34,392 to $75,076. Those with more than 10 years experience, on the other hand, earn upwards of $105,757 per year.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/average-income-small-business-owners-5189.html

But the Corpratocracy, through their various and sundry mouth pieces would have us believe that if taxes were raised on incomes over $250,000, small business owners would be ruined. The fact of the matter is that most small businesses don't even gross $250,000.

But you hear the lie repeated via the Corpratocracy media every day, and then regurgitated by well meaning Americans who have been fooled by the conservo-libertarian political philosophy. And so these otherwise rational Americans continue to vote for their own demise.

By the way when did liberal become a nasty word? Now the left call them progressives. I know there has been a progressive so called movement for ages but only til recently did that term get substituted for liberal. Is it because we are not the liberal country that the left likes to think we are? Too toxic a term?

I love the word liberal. I am a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. I will not shrink from that title. I am proud to be a liberal. I am embarassed that I was once fooled by the Corpratocracy into believing in the conservo-libertarian philosophy and actually considered myself a conservative.

Liberal became a bad word when the corpratocracy decided Liberalism was a threat to its control of the toiling masses. They hired the Limbaughs, Hannity's et al to spread their message that "liberalsim is a social disorder" and other such nonsense.

Now, 6 corporations have almost total control of the mainstream media. In the 1980's, media ownership was spread over more than 50 corporations. Control the money supply, control the media, control education, control the masses.

The truth, however, is that conservatism is the real social disorder. Conservatism ensures the control of society economically by the top 1%. Liberalism threatens that control - hence the BILLIONS spent by the Corpratocracy to convice you that liberal is a bad word.
 

retro

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,886
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Here's a solution for everyone.

Ron Paul 2012

This is all I'm going to contribute to what used to be my thread... there's no point in "debating" anything around here anymore with all of the vitriolic attacks being slung around, everyone talking down to everyone else, ad the downright out and out insults. Oh, and John... while Jefferson was against dependence upon banking systems, he was also against dependence upon the government. I'm personally against both of them, and so is Ron Paul. :D

So, elect Ron Paul and we'll be in a much better place than we are now.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
ah but that dreaded media has convinced enough that Ron Paul is a nut

I may not agree with several issues he talks about but he sure would be a step towards righting the ship.

The current leadership on both sides can't show me much they have done right.

You have the neo cons and the nanny state that has been in charge for years and this is what they have led us into.

I think if Ron Paul had an ounce of charisma and was 15-20 years younger he would win in a landslide
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
John, based on that last post, why would you not vote for Ron Paul??

I consider Paul a lesser evil. I distrust his Libertarianism philosophy primarily because it causes him to oppose universal health care coverage and a living wage for the working class. With that said, he is far and away better than the establishment asshats like Romney and Obama. Obama is Republican lite and the rest of the Republicans represent the top 1% and won't even toss any scraps to small business or the working class.

It's the federal legislature where the power for change lies. Every one of us posting here knows this. Presidents are the national peacocks with veto power, but cannot force the legislature to do a damned thing. I'd much prefer to bring congress and senate into line than waste too much energy on the peacock.
 

CityGirl

Active Member
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
BUT ... can we stipulate that we've wandered deep enough into the weeds that to go any further we'd both have to do some substantial education?
I've been following this thread with great interest and I completely agree, Accountable that we could use some substantial education. In seeking just that, I came across this article and sent the link to John. I want to share it with those here at OTz and hope maybe it can add to the discussion. http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1232
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Thanks, CG!
sunshine.gif


~~~

It's the federal legislature where the power for change lies. Every one of us posting here knows this.
We can hope everyone here knows; I'm not so sure. And I'm pretty sure a huge chunk of the voting public are unaware of it. I tend to get a little torqued when people blame a given president for stuff and I run off to find which party was in charge of Congress at the time. Then I get frustrated when all of the news stories and history entries about the incident in question focus on the president! * Congress causes all the damage and the president, who has less power, gets the credit or blame. It's the anonymity that being 1 in 500 allows.

* I also get frustrated when 1) I catch myself blaming only the president for given atrocities (FDR, Wilson, etc) {but who else can I blame??} and 2) I rail at only one side of The Party, when almost every major assfuck Americans have taken has been a menage a trois?
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Is there a good guy running, in your view?

No. Not when "good guy" by my definition, means someone who will stand up for the working class and small business class, which is 95% of the population.

Pauls deregulatory policies support the top 1%, and his position against unions harms the working class - he supports legislation weakening labor laws even further - and American labor unions are already on the ropes.

The only positives I can find on RP is his opposition to our foriegn wars - which is a big plus, and his opposition to the private sector control of the nations currencey via the Federal Reserve.

It does not take a whole lot for one to become a lesser evil than the current batch we have in washington.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Sadly to be realistic except for getting troops brought home there is not much else Paul can do. As Acc pointed out the congress has most of the power. Maybe he could get the Federal Reserve brought out from under cover but most of his domestic policies would not pass. I can live with that though. I would rather have a stalemate in congress than for them to pass all the bullshit they have been in the last several years.

IMO you could get rid of the EPA, Education Department, and OSHA and nothing would change. At least in MI there would be little change because those programs are also in Michigan on a state level. Unless one state can make a legal argument that their policy is legally going to impact another state then each state for the most part should be left on their own. Not everything but for the most part. You can move out of state pretty readily and easily the same as you can move out of a city. Kind of hard to move out of a country though for the most part.

I
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
As Acc pointed out the congress has most of the power.

Actually I pointed that out an Acc agreed. ;) Far too much energy is wasted on presidential elections when the power of the federal legislature is compared to it.

Maybe he could get the Federal Reserve brought out from under cover......

Maybe, but most Americans are too clueless to even understand the implications of a private bank controlling our currency. Just look at the silly ass Rep v. Dem arguments occurring all over the internet.

IMO you could get rid of the EPA, Education Department, and OSHA and nothing would change.

Two of those agencies were created because industry did not care about worker safety or pollution. Profit is all that matters to most Captains of Industry - workers and environment be damned. How quickly we forget.

Allen - you're old enough to remember at least one of the Cuyhoga River fires and the horrible industrial pollution that has been dumped into it:

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/cuyahoga_river_fire_40_years_a.html

large_Richard-Ellers-Cuyahoga-River-goop.jpg

cuyahoga_fire650.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtqSvwyNsQ


At least in MI there would be little change because those programs are also in Michigan on a state level. Unless one state can make a legal argument that their policy is legally going to impact another state then each state for the most part should be left on their own. Not everything but for the most part. You can move out of state pretty readily and easily the same as you can move out of a city. Kind of hard to move out of a country though for the most part.

If states actually got the job done, there would be no need for the EPA. Historically, states have been poor protectors of the environment until the federal government stepped in.

Sorry, but industry must be regulated or else we will all get fucked over for the divine rite of corporate profits. Industry has proven this repeatedly. The "corporate person" is a thoughtless citizen.

Education is a completely different issue. American education has been dumbed down for a reason. Why do you think conservative politicians fight against the Department of Education so hard? The DOE is ineffective because the right wing desires it to be. They will fight to sabotage any effort to improve education in America. They try and blame it on liberals, but when you investigate the issue, conservatives have done ZERO to improve education. It is in the best interests of conservatism to have a dumbed down populace. And educated population would not collectively tolerate a federal legislature that only represents the top 1%.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
I deal with an industry that is heavily regulated by the equivalent of a state EPA.

I happen to have a lot of hands on experience in the regulations which I dare say you do not John.

You would have a valid argument about states being negligent 40 years ago but there is no way that happens today. You have a massive environmental lobbying group that would always be there to ensure we do not take steps backward.

You no longer need the EPA in most states as long as the states continue their programs. Just make the states adopt the existing rules of the EPA. Then close the EPA down. If any rules are too onerous or unnecessary then the states can go to court and get a variance to allow for the rules to be rescinded or amended.

The same goes with OSHA. Most states have their own OSHA.

We are paying for duplication. Where it is not needed.

As to the Ohio fire example you missed my point about where one state can not cause harm to another. That would an example where other states would and should be able to intervene as that water way makes it into Lake Erie. Even at that there is the Great Lakes Compact that would probably have a say in preventing something like occurring in this day and age.

If it is a contained waterway then I am not sure why other states would or should intervene if there is no impact on them.You won't agree I am sure. Again though the environment lobby has a ton more influence now and I believe they would have an impact on something like happening.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Sorry John but I really do not want to state my occupation at this point in time.

You just will have to take the leap of faith that I am being truthful. As I have stated before I have been involved in both state and local regulations and rules promulgations. I was on the ground floor of the promulgating of local regulations. I was involved in state revisions both 20 years ago and about 4 years ago when they tried to railroad us.

In the local example the county executive vetoed what the commission had passed. The commission almost unanimously over rode the veto which the county exec ignored. The commission had a meeting and was all set to vote to go to court to force the exec to enact the rules package when all of a sudden the chair of the commission said they need more time to try to see if there was a way to avoid the lawsuit. We got blindsided and the exec ended up getting what he wanted.

Politics is dirty business and unless you have a ton of influence you are fucked. In the case of both the state and local issues we as an industry were treated like criminals afterward and were/are subjected to paybacks by the regulators.
 

Johnfromokc

Active Member
Messages
3,226
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I'd really like to know what industry you are in - it would help me understand. I'll give you a little of my experience though:

Without revealing my own industry, suffice it to say we are present in all 50 states and U.S. territories. I've held a few positions that put me on the front lines of OSHA and EPA compliance over the last 25 years.

1. I currently teach compliance with section 608 of the Clean air Act and select portions of OSHA compliance related to my areas of responsibility.

2. I handled the standard waste management and recycling contracts for my company.

3. I handled hazardous waste disposal for my company.

4. I handled OSHA compliance for my company.

5. I hold contractors licenses in two states and therefore have to understand OSHA and EPA requirements.

We even have to monitor wells to ensure we do not contaminate ground water with underground fuel storage tanks.

I don't know if you have to deal with more environmental and safety compliance issues than I have, but I've dealt with enough of them that I have a very good first hand understanding of the how's and why's these regulations exist.

Once you have a compliance program in place and stay on top of it, it is simply not a major issue. Where problems arise is when individuals within organizations display negative attitudes toward compliance. When I first started dealing with these issues, I didn't much like it either. But in a very short time, compliance became business as usual, and became routine and rather easy.

I cannot imagine how pollution prevention and safety compliance could cause the level of problems you seem to think it does.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I deal with an industry that is heavily regulated by the equivalent of a state EPA.

I happen to have a lot of hands on experience in the regulations which I dare say you do not John.

You would have a valid argument about states being negligent 40 years ago but there is no way that happens today. You have a massive environmental lobbying group that would always be there to ensure we do not take steps backward.

You no longer need the EPA in most states as long as the states continue their programs. Just make the states adopt the existing rules of the EPA. Then close the EPA down. If any rules are too onerous or unnecessary then the states can go to court and get a variance to allow for the rules to be rescinded or amended.
But air and water cross state lines, making environmental regulation an interstate concern. Check out how Dr Paul explains it. Jump in to about 4:15:

http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/ron-paul-part-1-121611/1374351/?__cid=thefilter
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
You would have a valid argument about states being negligent 40 years ago but there is no way that happens today. You have a massive environmental lobbying group that would always be there to ensure we do not take steps backward.

You no longer need the EPA in most states as long as the states continue their programs. Just make the states adopt the existing rules of the EPA. Then close the EPA down. If any rules are too onerous or unnecessary then the states can go to court and get a variance to allow for the rules to be rescinded or amended.

The same goes with OSHA. Most states have their own OSHA.

Doesn't the national bureaucracy keep all the States on the same page? If not for Federal Guidance, I could easily see a State like Texas saying dump your crap on your property no problem. Yes I am prejudice.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays! :):)
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top