Random Political Thoughts

[PB the Deplorable]

85 people have equal wealth to half the population of the planet.

That's not all that surprising.

Take the wealth of the top 85 - that's going to be Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Sam Walton heirs, Larry Ellison, Page & Brin, Zuckerpuke, Carlos Slim, the wealthiest of Wall St and Hollywood, George Soros, Al Gore, Ted Turner, the heads of the richest royal families in Europe and other places - including the Sultan of Brunei, a few dictators who have stolen their countries riches, as well as any foreign aid...

Then we have so many in the 3rd and 4th worlds who have very little or nothing.  We have young people in the West just out of school and starting life, others living paycheck to paycheck for various reasons - all these people have are their cars, electronic gizmos, clothes, and whatever they have in their apartments (soap, towels, dishes, furniture).

So take those top 85 and the bottom half, frankly I'm surprised the bottom half have that much.

[onan]

69 people have equal fun to half the population of the planet.

I think your stats are off.

[Lunger]

I shouldn't even bother to respond to this, but Heavens how do people like you exist?
Doctorate from MIT, Columnist for the New York Times, frequent contributor to This Week with G.S., frequent appearances on Charlie Rose, published author, winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, what more qualification could you possibly want?
Not to mention his opposition to austerity has been borne out by the slow/non recovery in Europe and, to a degree, here.
Partisan fool?  Perhaps the most unqualified statement ever made in these threads.  And that's with Ruteger trolling around!

Sorry, but I have no desire to engage in a reality-schooling with some random internet jackass who just isn't capable of getting it in any case. 

Rest assured though that no on takes you seriously either.

[PB the Deplorable]

Despite our political differences I like you. You're damned funny on other threads, especially Jorch's Eye Pad.
That is why I will avoid my usual unctuous response and instead ask you to please watch CNBC for one full day. 
There is no way, after watching a whole trading day, you can honestly say that this whole economy isn't a zero-sum game.

Nearly every transaction that takes place in our economy builds a tiny bit of wealth. 

For example, once a week or so I'd rather have a loaf of bread than $3.  The grocer would rather have my $3 than keep the bread on the shelf.  Do I wish it cost less?  Does the grocer wish he could get more for it?  Of course. 

There were plenty of others down the chain who also gained a bit of wealth with each transaction along the way - the farmer, the seed and fertilizer distributer, the baker, the transportation companies, the employees of the grocer and all the rest.  If each of these transactions weren't in their best interests financially (i.e. building wealth), they wouldn't have made them.

Whenever anything is consumed rather than saved a bit of wealth disappears. Overall as a group we save more than we consume, even when some live beyond their means on credit, so, overall, wealth in the economy increases.

A disaster will cause destruction of wealth - a tornado or flood for example.  Even if insured, someone pays for the rebuilding they wouldn't otherwise have to do.  Crime.  Because a thief will value your stuff much less than you do, wealth is destroyed in a robbery.  Or a business will choose to not expand into a certain area due to crime rates - that company, it's potential employees, potential customers, and taxing authorities all lose (or, more precisely, won't gain).  The criminal himself is unproductive, instead of contributing his efforts in the workforce.

I don't think we even need to get into government taxing and spending, other than to note the government has the ability to destroy enormous amounts of wealth.  Too many tax dollars are wasted or go to non-productive projects and agencies.  Inflation is a wealth killer.  Look at how much wealth was destroyed in the meltdown of 2008, or is not being generated now with so many unemployed, regardless of who was to blame.

It's not a zero sum situation. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Whenever anything is consumed rather than saved a bit of wealth disappears.

Fuckin A, dude.  I don't know why more people don't understand this.  Why, just the other day the baby was crying and the ol' ball-and-chain demanded that I feed him.  I tried to tell her that "Whenever anything is consumed rather than saved a bit of wealth disappears," but she seemed way too focused on feeding the squalling brat rather than getting with the program.  Women!

[PB the Deplorable]

Speaking of the total amount of Wealth in an economy NOT being a fixed amount, or a zero sum situation, here's one that I know Pud will enjoy. 

And also those that think it's all so 'unfair', and want to continue growing government.

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

[Yorkshire pud]

Speaking of the total amount of Wealth in an economy NOT being a fixed amount, or a zero sum situation, here's one that I know Pud will enjoy. 

And also those that think it's all so 'unfair', and want to continue growing government.

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

Let us know which specific point(s) you're making PB regarding Thatcher and I'll be happy to reply in full. Just bear in mind I lived through her entire tenure as PM; I also lived in an area that suffered 60000 job losses in the steel industry alone. I also lived in the time that her economic policies forced mortgage interest rates to 16%, and people were having their homes repossessed at the highest rate ever. That unemployment went to over 4 million. That Thatcher said there was no such thing as society and it was a free for all; She de-regulated the city to that end, and the gap between rich and poor was the second highest ever..the first is now, with another Tory led government. That de-regulation contributed (almost entirely) to the economic debacle in 2006-2007. Her policies encouraged home grown companies to export jobs abroad: She privatised publically owned utilities that were eventually snapped up by foreign companies so that now we have NO British owned electricity or gas generating or supply companies..Same goes for water. All foreign owned. Oh, and railways, either German or French, and we pay the highest train fairs in Europe: The irony is that the profits go to the publically owned railway companies in yep, France and Germany!

And those damned liberals and socialists warned that the above would happen. They were condemned as scare mongering, who didn't have the best interests of Britain at heart! Oh if only hindsight was an art form.

[SciFiAuthor]

The biggest failure is the terms in which people think of the economy. Somewhere along the line the Republican Party gave up its historic position of protectionism in favor of free trade. Bad move. It simply resulted in a short-term period where someone could manufacture something in a foreign country cheaply and sell it here in order to undercut domestic manufacturing. It was very short term. The end result was a temporary wealth drain to the east, and a poorer west as we exported jobs out of the country, and with it exported our people's ability to buy anything. I still hear Republicans parroting this free trade bullshit as though it's proven to even remotely be a good thing. In fact, it fucking sucks. Worse, it's a mistake that was made before. You can't sell very many expensive goods to people that don't have the money to buy them. Why we thought we could sell $35,000 pick up trucks to people that make $2 a day is beyond me, but, well, that's what we were promised in the 90's. Idiots.

But you won't get much different from the Democrats. They're equally willing to hobble the US economy with regulation after regulation, complicit action in the passage of free trade laws, usually out of some misguided sense of fairness towards the third world. More, they seem bent on making everything expensive for everyone and lower the quality of life for the US. Obama went so far as to say as much. Live with less, folks.

Well, the result is the same from both parties: your kids end up poorer than you are.

Instead we, and everyone else in the world, should be talking about tariffing foreign goods to promote our own economies. You'd think promoting our own economies would be an expected and chief concern of our respective governments. It hasn't been for some time because half of them are too caught up in some bullshit about a global economy where we all hold hands around the campfire and sing folk songs about global happiness and the other half are tickling the balls of their business buddies with a good old fashioned economy raid. But in the long term, it's bad for everyone. Bad for business, bad for every economy in the world, bad for the people, bad for everybody.

[Yorkshire pud]

railways, either German or French, and we pay the highest train fairs in Europe: The irony is that the profits go to the publically owned railway companies in yep, France and Germany!

And those damned liberals and socialists warned that the above would happen. They were condemned as scare mongering, who didn't have the best interests of Britain at heart! Oh if only hindsight was an art form.

I forgot to add:

Even funnier (in a sick sort of way) is that the privately owned railway companies have a subsidy paid for by that precious thing the tax payer (The same one that Thatcher claimed to want to protect from that nasty subsidy yoke in other industries) that exceeds by many many times that ever paid to the old publically owned British Rail. Why? You may ask.. Well, because a condition of the franchises that the privitisation generated was that the government would do so. What of course happened was the initial companies set up have long gone, the directors having bought the franchises at almost zero (comparatively) with borrowed money. They then milked the profits after they sold them to other foreign companies. Free market being what it is..The other best part is that the rails are in fact owned by Network rail (another company) who lease the track to the railway companies at such a rate it's cheaper to transport broken locomotives by road than it is to transport them by rail! The other other best bit? The rolling stock is leased by the companies to themselves, but because they're foreign owned, they escape tax that could go to the UK exchequer...Doubles all round.

[NowhereInTime]

The biggest failure is the terms in which people think of the economy. Somewhere along the line the Republican Party gave up its historic position of protectionism in favor of free trade. Bad move. It simply resulted in a short-term period where someone could manufacture something in a foreign country cheaply and sell it here in order to undercut domestic manufacturing. It was very short term. The end result was a temporary wealth drain to the east, and a poorer west as we exported jobs out of the country, and with it exported our people's ability to buy anything. I still hear Republicans parroting this free trade bullshit as though it's proven to even remotely be a good thing. In fact, it fucking sucks. Worse, it's a mistake that was made before. You can't sell very many expensive goods to people that don't have the money to buy them. Why we thought we could sell $35,000 pick up trucks to people that make $2 a day is beyond me, but, well, that's what we were promised in the 90's. Idiots.

But you won't get much different from the Democrats. They're equally willing to hobble the US economy with regulation after regulation, complicit action in the passage of free trade laws, usually out of some misguided sense of fairness towards the third world. More, they seem bent on making everything expensive for everyone and lower the quality of life for the US. Obama went so far as to say as much. Live with less, folks.

Well, the result is the same from both parties: your kids end up poorer than you are.

Instead we, and everyone else in the world, should be talking about tariffing foreign goods to promote our own economies. You'd think promoting our own economies would be an expected and chief concern of our respective governments. It hasn't been for some time because half of them are too caught up in some bullshit about a global economy where we all hold hands around the campfire and sing folk songs about global happiness and the other half are tickling the balls of their business buddies with a good old fashioned economy raid. But in the long term, it's bad for everyone. Bad for business, bad for every economy in the world, bad for the people, bad for everybody.

I would rather have a party that at least tries to protect people through regulation (even though it is often misdirected and cumbersome) than a party of "every man for himself" except those who try to take my stuff.
This "Do as thou will" approach to the economy sank this ship.  If the "wealth creators" had something of a sense of proportion and responsibility, then I would agree the yoke of regulation should be lessened. 
Oh, and I can't wait for Peter Rabbit to bring my chocolate bunny.

[PB the Deplorable]

I would rather have a party that at least tries to protect people through regulation (even though it is often misdirected and cumbersome) than a party of "every man for himself" except those who try to take my stuff.
This "Do as thou will" approach to the economy sank this ship.  If the "wealth creators" had something of a sense of proportion and responsibility, then I would agree the yoke of regulation should be lessened. 
Oh, and I can't wait for Peter Rabbit to bring my chocolate bunny.

In other words more bureaucracy, more taxes, and everyone's evil except the Left and their mascots

[NowhereInTime]

In other words more bureaucracy, more taxes, and everyone's evil except the Left

As opposed to unregulated credit default swaps, unchecked price gouging on the commodities market, non-existent food safety standards, dumping chemicals in our aquifers, insider trading, racial hiring and home loan discrimination, slush fund "Super Pacs", bogus "poll tax" and "voter ID" cards that can only be obtained 30 miles away, giveaway contracts to connected companies...
In other words everyone's evil except the 1%.

[SciFiAuthor]

I would rather have a party that at least tries to protect people through regulation (even though it is often misdirected and cumbersome) than a party of "every man for himself" except those who try to take my stuff.
This "Do as thou will" approach to the economy sank this ship.  If the "wealth creators" had something of a sense of proportion and responsibility, then I would agree the yoke of regulation should be lessened. 
Oh, and I can't wait for Peter Rabbit to bring my chocolate bunny.

I suppose it depends on what protect means and what the motives behind the regulation are for me to condemn or get behind it. I don't mind, for example, that we inspect meat and set standards on municipal water quality. But when we start doing things that can result in economic repercussions, then I can't get behind it because in the end everyone loses. An example would be a businessman making widgets that has to comply with a new hike in the minimum wage. It can simply make his costs too high to produce widgets, so he goes out of business or moves the operation to China. The end result is a lack of jobs. That doesn't help anyone, in the end. But you also can't pay $1 an hour either to compete with Chinese labor. That leaves protectionism as the only way out.

But, notice how neither party mentions the word protectionism. In fact, the only person in recent memory to say anything about it was Donald Trump (!) in a rare moment of clarity in between releasing his birth certificates.

I don't buy into the old hate the rich mantra. That stuff gets toted out every few decades by people with agendas other than what they're saying. It's a good way to manipulate people into voting for them by promising them other people's stuff, but when the government actually gets ahold of the money it just pisses it away on pork spending, everyone gets disillusioned, and the whole issue goes away until a new generation comes along that can be snowed with it. To me, it's simply a diversion from reality.

Instead, I prefer to hate the politician. They're the ones at the helm passing free trade laws in a bipartisan attempt to make up for the losses to regulation. Unfortunately it was a short-term solution, so the Bush I -Clinton era left us exporting jobs and national wealth to other nations in order to keep US corporations solvent and the (reported) job numbers up--for a while. Bush II knew there was a problem and tried deregulating, but had no idea (even Greenspan admitted that they had no idea) that housing was in such a bubble, and when it burst it brought the entire house of cards to the ground. And it stayed there. Bush should have known better, easy credit should not have been made easier. And it's one of the reasons Obama can't get the economy moving, the entire US economy ended up dependent on credit and there is no more credit available, and he also misguidedly does everything he can to keep it down. So he just lies about the unemployment numbers hoping no one will notice and keeps people on the dole. But, that is unsustainable financially. It too must collapse.

So, yeah, that leaves protectionism. It's the only thing left to try. 

[b_dubb]

Our Coke VS Pepsi Democracy is doomed.  Because when you get right down to it there's very little difference between the two choices.

[PB the Deplorable]

As opposed to unregulated credit default swaps, unchecked price gouging on the commodities market, non-existent food safety standards, dumping chemicals in our aquifers, insider trading, racial hiring and home loan discrimination, slush fund "Super Pacs", bogus "poll tax" and "voter ID" cards that can only be obtained 30 miles away, ...
In other words everyone's evil except the 1%.

I tend to post about the economy in 'big picture' terms.  The economy is so vast and multi-faceted it's easy to get lost in the weeds unless a specific event or issue is the topic.  Most people have very little understanding of even the most basic fundamentals.

The Left, being agitators that hate the US and constantly attacking on all fronts - social, economic, political, legal, our system of government, infiltrating and corrupting our organizations and so on are very adept at both finding failings to point to or issues to distort, and then telling us the whole system is corrupt, failed, etc.  They are also quite adept at using the language, the media, the court system, academia, and the bureaucracy against us.


The items you tend to post about are not big picture issues, they are the same issues rest of the Leftists pick out and hrp on and distort.  I agree things can be corrupt, but I mostly blame the people we hire to ensure otherwise - our government officials.  Without them looking the other way and doing favors for their cronies, much of it wouldn't exist.  Others point only to the crooks involved and ignore the governmental authority and role.  In addition to that, things change - new regs are required and some older ones become obsolete.  The bureaucracy needs to keep up, and it's a current administrations job to see that they do.  So lets look at your list.


Unregulated credit default swaps - yep, this is what caused AIG to crash and burn.  Basically they are insurance contracts against loss of income (dividends and interest) or the market value of a security.  They should be limited to those who own the underlying securities.  They became better known to the public (and to our officials) in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown.  Why hasn't Obama addressed this?

Unchecked price gouging in the commodities market - 'gouging' is not an economic term.  When supply does not meet demand, prices increase, which allows for the best allocation of resources.  And signals to producers to produce more.  This is just as true during an emergency as it is in the regular ups and downs of a market.  Maybe you can provide examples of what you are talking about instead of appealing to emotionalism. 

Non-existent food safety standards - non-existent?  Not sure what you are talking about, unless you are referring to food from bureaucratic Socialist China.  I think we have good food safety regs, although there are some well funded rich lobbyists who manage to suppress food safety regulations in some sectors of food production.  After 5 years of Obama, why are your specific concerns not being addressed?

Dumping chemicals in our aquifers - I'm with you on that.  Pretty sure it's already illegal.  Where are the regulators and the criminal investigators?

Insider trading - as with much of your list, there are crooks everywhere.  It's not enough to point to a crowd of people and say 'if any of you are crooks, please stop'.  No, we hire officials to root them out.  But too many times our officials are either incompetent or are accomplices (fraudulent stock transactions can be difficult to uncover).  Each administration needs to be evaluated on it's own for the time it was in charge.  Are you saying Obama's administration is currently falling short?

Racial hiring - there are laws, again it's about prosecution.  In my experience here in a fairly non-racist environment, companies go out of their way to hire and promote other than white males.  That is probably true among nearly all publicly traded companies.  To the point of reverse discrimination.  The relative differences in education, skills, and experience between racial groups is not the fault of the employer.

Home loan discrimination - laughable.  That's what the sub-prime mortgage problem was all about.  Minorities and others encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford. 

Slush fund "Super Pacs" - I'm with you on that.  Unions, businesses, everyone but the people whose country this is.  The whole thing needs to be reformed (read:  eliminated). 

Bogus "poll tax - educate me - what are you talking about?

"Voter ID" cards that can only be obtained 30 miles away - completely phony issue.  Only espoused by those who want illegals to vote and other voter fraud.

Giveaway contracts to connected companies - Soyndra and the other 'green energy' scandals?  The no-bid ObamaCare website and software?

[PB the Deplorable]

Our Coke VS Pepsi Democracy is doomed.  Because when you get right down to it there's very little difference between the two choices.

That is unfortunately too true.

My take is over the past 10-15 years the moderate to liberal Dems in Congress have been nearly completely wiped out.  They've been replaced by radical 'progressives'.

The Establishment Republicans have continued to purge the older House and Senate members that came in during the Reagan years.  There are no leaders now, only climbers - people adept at back room deals and going along to get along.  They like big government too, the difference being they want to control it instead of the Dems. 

They have no political principles and represent no one.  They are closer to the moderate Democrats of 20 years ago than they are to true Conservatives.  In fact they fight against the Conservatives harder than they do Obama and the D's.  They have become the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.


We need to get back to being a true Constitutional Republic.

[aldousburbank]

Our Coke VS Pepsi Democracy is doomed.  Because when you get right down to it there's very little difference between the two choices.

I know, stuff has sucked ever since the alkaloidal mojo was extracted from the original Coke.

[NowhereInTime]

That is unfortunately too true.

My take is over the past 10-15 years the moderate to liberal Dems in Congress have been nearly completely wiped out.  They've been replaced by radical 'progressives'.

The Establishment Republicans have continued to purge the older House and Senate members that came in during the Reagan years.  There are no leaders now, only climbers - people adept at back room deals and going along to get along.  They like big government too, the difference being they want to control it instead of the Dems. 

They have no political principles and represent no one.  They are closer to the moderate Democrats of 20 years ago than they are to true Conservatives.  In fact they fight against the Conservatives harder than they do Obama and the D's.  They have become the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.


We need to get back to being a true Constitutional Republic.

Ah, yes the "true" conservatives.  Brown shirts, jack boots, goose steps. Pure in every way.

[NowhereInTime]

I tend to post about the economy in 'big picture' terms.  The economy is so vast and multi-faceted it's easy to get lost in the weeds unless a specific event or issue is the topic.  Most people have very little understanding of even the most basic fundamentals.

The Left, being agitators that hate the US and constantly attacking on all fronts - social, economic, political, legal, our system of government, infiltrating and corrupting our organizations and so on are very adept at both finding failings to point to or issues to distort, and then telling us the whole system is corrupt, failed, etc.  They are also quite adept at using the language, the media, the court system, academia, and the bureaucracy against us.


The items you tend to post about are not big picture issues, they are the same issues rest of the Leftists pick out and hrp on and distort.  I agree things can be corrupt, but I mostly blame the people we hire to ensure otherwise - our government officials.  Without them looking the other way and doing favors for their cronies, much of it wouldn't exist.  Others point only to the crooks involved and ignore the governmental authority and role.  In addition to that, things change - new regs are required and some older ones become obsolete.  The bureaucracy needs to keep up, and it's a current administrations job to see that they do.  So lets look at your list.


Unregulated credit default swaps - yep, this is what caused AIG to crash and burn.  Basically they are insurance contracts against loss of income (dividends and interest) or the market value of a security.  They should be limited to those who own the underlying securities.  They became better known to the public (and to our officials) in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown.  Why hasn't Obama addressed this?

Unchecked price gouging in the commodities market - 'gouging' is not an economic term.  When supply does not meet demand, prices increase, which allows for the best allocation of resources.  And signals to producers to produce more.  This is just as true during an emergency as it is in the regular ups and downs of a market.  Maybe you can provide examples of what you are talking about instead of appealing to emotionalism. 

Non-existent food safety standards - non-existent?  Not sure what you are talking about, unless you are referring to food from bureaucratic Socialist China.  I think we have good food safety regs, although there are some well funded rich lobbyists who manage to suppress food safety regulations in some sectors of food production.  After 5 years of Obama, why are your specific concerns not being addressed?

Dumping chemicals in our aquifers - I'm with you on that.  Pretty sure it's already illegal.  Where are the regulators and the criminal investigators?

Insider trading - as with much of your list, there are crooks everywhere.  It's not enough to point to a crowd of people and say 'if any of you are crooks, please stop'.  No, we hire officials to root them out.  But too many times our officials are either incompetent or are accomplices (fraudulent stock transactions can be difficult to uncover).  Each administration needs to be evaluated on it's own for the time it was in charge.  Are you saying Obama's administration is currently falling short?

Racial hiring - there are laws, again it's about prosecution.  In my experience here in a fairly non-racist environment, companies go out of their way to hire and promote other than white males.  That is probably true among nearly all publicly traded companies.  To the point of reverse discrimination.  The relative differences in education, skills, and experience between racial groups is not the fault of the employer.

Home loan discrimination - laughable.  That's what the sub-prime mortgage problem was all about.  Minorities and others encouraged to buy homes they couldn't afford. 

Slush fund "Super Pacs" - I'm with you on that.  Unions, businesses, everyone but the people whose country this is.  The whole thing needs to be reformed (read:  eliminated). 

Bogus "poll tax - educate me - what are you talking about?

"Voter ID" cards that can only be obtained 30 miles away - completely phony issue.  Only espoused by those who want illegals to vote and other voter fraud.

Giveaway contracts to connected companies - Soyndra and the other 'green energy' scandals?  The no-bid ObamaCare website and software?

The short answer is that conservatives have blocked or limited every regulatory attempt: you repealed Glass Steagall and have interfered with Dodd - Frank so little but civil penalty has been done.
Did you not see what happened in West Virginia these past few weeks? I defy you to drink the water there now.
EPA & FDA? You know damn well your team has gutted (and try to abolish) both as "burdensome" regulations.
Distortion after conflation after lie. The conservatives' response to every Indictment.

[Unquenchable Angst]

That's not all that surprising.

Take the wealth of the top 85 - that's going to be Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Sam Walton heirs, Larry Ellison, Page & Brin, Zuckerpuke, Carlos Slim, the wealthiest of Wall St and Hollywood, George Soros, Al Gore, Ted Turner, the heads of the richest royal families in Europe and other places - including the Sultan of Brunei, a few dictators who have stolen their countries riches, as well as any foreign aid...

Then we have so many in the 3rd and 4th worlds who have very little or nothing.  We have young people in the West just out of school and starting life, others living paycheck to paycheck for various reasons - all these people have are their cars, electronic gizmos, clothes, and whatever they have in their apartments (soap, towels, dishes, furniture).

So take those top 85 and the bottom half, frankly I'm surprised the bottom half have that much.

Actually the Rothschild dynasty and to a lesser extent the Rockefeller Bros. Fund probably makes this list of the wealthiest look like the cheap seats. Actually the list here is probably 2% of that top echelon of wealth with Rothschild holdings probably accounting for 75% of that top. Last I read is their holding amount to around $200 TRILLION and they have been accumulating the world for over 200 years.
If there is ever going to be restoration of principles embodied in the articles of confederation, Constitutution, Bill of Rights and a chance to actually live up to them People will have to realize that any candidates that get to lofty positions via membership in CFR, Bilderburg conferences, Attend the frolics in the Grove, council of 300, Trilateral Commission or any of these elite groups are antithetical to our freedom and liberty and definitely working against people aspiring to achieving a more enlightened state. They are all working towards reducing people to a Neo-Feudal Anti- Renaissance  era of Techno-Servitude The division between the 'parties' only shows their divide and conquer  tactic is working. They have poisoned the food, the water, they are destroying the job base in the name of the environment when it is well in the means to clean up without shutting down, Taxing businesses out of staying state side. Allowing only toxic chemistry into medicine while subjecting knowledge of alternatives to scrutiny only applied to the toxic drugs after substantial body counts. Constant fear constantly applied. Make Farm subsidies work for corporate farms and tax the family farms out of existence with death taxes on the heirs. on and on I can go and yet you have your bread and circuses. Your baseless dead food and your football. No kidding people what is on the Georgia Guidestones is what these people have planned for you, your family and your neighbors.At this time there is not much difference between those that run or wish to run the 'Parties'. The Democrats have not been true to America since Grover Cleveland and the Republicans have not created a true voice since Coolidge and Reagan was saddled with CFR hacks  G.Bush and other Neo-CONvicts.
I am glad to be growing old, I hope I have 10 or 20 more years but I don't have much hope for the rest of society. I have seen the panic set in during storm warnings, I have seen the way people think the government will save their asses in crises. I have no such illusions.

[FightTheFuture]

Sec. of State John Kerry, making phenomenal progress in Israel!


John Kerry Solutions Inc. Israel Tour, February 2014

[Yorkshire pud]

Allowing only toxic chemistry into medicine while subjecting knowledge of alternatives to scrutiny only applied to the toxic drugs after substantial body counts.

I sort of go along with a lot of what you said, but the above is not true. Before a medication (one that is used in the west as a script) is released for use, it undertakes many years of controlled double blind testing. Even then it doesn't automatically make it available for script. Especially in the UK where costs are closely monitored when it comes to new drugs and their efficacy. The costs are incurred when a new drug is released until the patent runs out and generic compounds are developed..

The 'alternative' compounds have no such double blind testing, accountability or ongoing monitoring. When did you last hear of someone who had taken a 'natural' remedy and was made severely ill or even disabled because of it, and got recompense to look after them for the rest of their life? They're not subject to such scrutiny as prescribed medicines. The haemopathic industry may as well sell water out of the tap; Oh, wait, they do.

No-one would suggest prescribed medications are 100% safe and secure 100% of the time. It's why they come with a long list of side effects and when and more importantly why not to use them in combinations with other medication (another thing that 'natural' remedies are not burdened with).

Put another way, if we didn't have prescribed drugs, we'd have a hell of a lot more people dead or a much worse quality of life than they do.

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, guys and gals... I'm wondering if anyone is experiencing a growing disinterest in politics.  Super-brief background:  I grew up in a conservative home.  My father insisted he was independent because he had voted for JFK in 1960 (otherwise, straight Republican ticket).  I could first vote in 1980 and think I went with John Anderson (after briefly thinking Barry Commonor had some good ideas).  Growing up Catholic in a conservative home and working in law enforcement for 13 years, I probably was a fiscal conservative with social conservative leanings.  I have, however, found myself leaning left, maybe even pretty far left, since about 1998.  I voted Gore mostly because I thought he would protect our environment.  GWB seemed very quickly to me to be a spoiled rich kid who became a politician because it meant increased power.

Long story short though, the whole damn thing (politics) seems more and more an elaborate dog and pony show, smoke and mirrors, a shell game.  I certainly think the Democratic party gets more right than they get wrong, but I don't think they're infallible.  I HAVE liked and voted for some Republicans, but the party now seems to have been absolutely hijacked by the far-right. 

Look, I'd love to see us spend less tax-payer money on horseshit.  I'd like to see people weened off institutional welfare.  I think a strong national defense is a good idea.  I am not fond of our constant "exportation of democracy", nation-building, and protecting corporations at the expense of actual human beings. 

However, I value science, education and the environment and think the Democratic party better serves this trio of issues.  The Republican party has made teachers "the enemy".  They have decided that poverty is a personal failing, and that the solution is always to simply pull oneself up by the bootstraps.

The media runs from story to story, whipping it for ratings while rarely digging in and seeking the truth.

In short, the whole thing -- the way our nation runs -- feels so far beyond my ability to sway in even the most incremental way.  I find myself no longer logging into political blogs the way I once did (to the tune of 6-10 a day for 15+ years).  I think the political threads here have become mostly an exercise in propaganda, name-calling, incivility -- with a decided lack of genuine critical thinking.

Anyone else losing an interest in politics?  I know that simply "bailing out" is not an answer.  It is giving in to the corporate oligarchy and will result only in further loss.  But I no longer have the interest or energy to keep "fighting the good fight".

Damn...  Sorry for that word-wall of rant.  I guess I'm just feeling really cynical today.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hey, guys and gals...
Damn...  Sorry for that word-wall of rant.  I guess I'm just feeling really cynical today.

No mate; Don't apologise. I think you probably feel like the majority of people. I lost faith in politicians when Tony Blair proved to be the lying, self serving murderous bastard that others told me he was;Thatcher I detested for other reasons. The only two people who I would have liked to see as Prime Ministers are now sadly dead. One was Mo Mowlem (Look for her story on YT, she's played by Julie Walters, epic performance), and the other was John Smith, a Scot, now buried on Iona. That they were both labour politicians (Smith was their leader before Blair) to me is an irrelevance. They were both decent, honourable people. Neither were perfect, which is why they were decent and honourable, they were human. Not the manufactured Barbie and Kens that are oh so media friendly we are foisted with now.

I don't know the answer W o t R; I wish I did. I do think we've been dumped on for years by the politico/ Corporate collective. It's not left/right; It's far far more insidious than simply giving it a pigeon holing 'ya boo' label. I've travelled around to various places, and all people want to do is have a decent life, the ones in poverty never choose it, and it's frankly an insulting and pointless exercise in simply telling them to work harder or better. You might as well tell a drowning man to swim harder if he's already trapped up up to his chest in mud. It's also cruel and says much when someone calls themself caring and righteous if they then choose to turn away, but throw the unhelpful suggestions. The song 'The way it is' by Bruce Hornsby has the line: The man in the silk suit hurries by. As he catches the poor old lady's eyes. Just for fun he says, "Get a job" That's what it has become. The haves telling the have not's they're wasting oxygen, and gloating in their misery. It disgusts me.

Hey man; You could stand as a president. All you need is a $billion and a few corporations on your side. That's how you represent the people. But I'm kidding you, you have too much integrity for that.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Hey, guys and gals... I'm wondering if anyone is experiencing a growing disinterest in politics.  Super-brief background:  I grew up in a conservative home.  My father insisted he was independent because he had voted for JFK in 1960 (otherwise, straight Republican ticket).  I could first vote in 1980 and think I went with John Anderson (after briefly thinking Barry Commonor had some good ideas).  Growing up Catholic in a conservative home and working in law enforcement for 13 years, I probably was a fiscal conservative with social conservative leanings.  I have, however, found myself leaning left, maybe even pretty far left, since about 1998.  I voted Gore mostly because I thought he would protect our environment.  GWB seemed very quickly to me to be a spoiled rich kid who became a politician because it meant increased power.

For me it's not so much a disinterest as in disgust. I've always been very left leaning, held up my share at demonstrations and caused a ruckus in my family over my views at one time. But I do come from a long line of proud union members, including my mother, and the worker has always been where we found common ground. Lately, I think I can count on my one hand the people in office who actually give a damn about the average worker, or working poor person, or the poor. Oh, they're out there, but few and far between, and when Bernie Sanders retires, there will be one less. The rest of politics seems like a never ending game of political posturing, and playing for campaign money, not for serving the best interests of the men and women (and I emphasize women) who voted them into office. It's nothing new, historically, in American politics, but it's distasteful all the same, especially the crudeness, incivility and unceasing name calling. I think we can be better than that, but for now, I just don't care anymore. What we now consider liberal is more of the moderate Republicans of the post-war years. Most of the true liberals have died off.

Two years ago, I watched the live proceedings for the legalisation of same-sex marriage in NY. There were four Republicans who broke ranks and voted their consciences, and because of their courage, we have marriage equality in NY. Those guys were my heroes for the night - putting their political futures on the line because they voted what they believed to be right. I know at least one lost in the next election because of this, but he said he didn't regret anything. Is it so difficult for others on both sides of the fence to do the same, to stop all the nonsense that goes along with posturing and for once, look at their constituents and feel a twinge of conscience?

No mate; Don't apologise. I think you probably feel like the majority of people. I lost faith in politicians when Tony Blair proved to be the lying, self serving murderous bastard that others told me he was;Thatcher I detested for other reasons. The only two people who I would have liked to see as Prime Ministers are now sadly dead. One was Mo Mowlem (Look for her story on YT, she's played by Julie Walters, epic performance), and the other was John Smith, a Scot, now buried on Iona. That they were both labour politicians (Smith was their leader before Blair) to me is an irrelevance. They were both decent, honourable people. Neither were perfect, which is why they were decent and honourable, they were human. Not the manufactured Barbie and Kens that are oh so media friendly we are foisted with now.

I totally agree, Yorkshire. And these are just the kind of people we need. If we had a Mo Mowlem here in the US, I think we'd be in a different place. We really need a fearless, compassionate leader. He or she doesn't need to be perfect, or pretend to be. We're all flawed. But we need stronger voices for each and every person in this country who is becoming more and more marginalized with every election.  Everyone should watch that story on youtube. It's beyond inspiring. Funny, I liked Blair in the beginning until all the machinations came out.

[NowhereInTime]

Unscreened Caller, Yorkshire Pud, West of the Rockies, and any other person disgusted or demoralized by politics:

Don't Give Up the Fight.  Please.

I know it seems like a slime tsunami (especially here on these boards) but to abdicate any involvement in your self governance is to invite someone else to take your place managing your affairs.

Despite my ongoing battles with Paper*Boy, Qucik Karl, DanTSX and others, I deeply respect and admire their willingness to fight for their rights and principles.  You have to stand up and be counted or the cynicism of despair will overcome you. 

This will lead only to misery and totalitarianism.

Step away, breathe, take a vacation, but never relinquish and never relent!!

[PB the Deplorable]

.. The Republican party has made teachers "the enemy"...

Not exactly.  Teachers  *Unions*, not teachers.

The Leftwing Teachers Unions, along with their Educrat lackeys working in office buildings in DC and in State capitals are the ones determining which textbooks to use and writing the curriculum.  These decisions should be returned to the Parents and Teachers.  We support teachers being given control.

We spend what, $8,000-10,000 per year for education on each kid.  Go look in any classroom and tell me where the $250,000-300,000 is.  Most of it is spent in the state capitals on people shuffling paper and trying to figure out how to further dumb down our schools - that's what the Libs and Progressives apparently support. 

[UnscreenedCaller]

I wish I had a union. Well, I do belong to the AFT to boost their numbers, but the school I work in is not unionized and this year, I have to reapply for a job  I've held for 12 years, plus I will lose all my accumulated sick days and tenure, that is, if I'm rehired based upon a 15 minute observation and a short interview. I have a MSEd that cost me bucks and certification, child abuse, school violence certificates, professional development courses and fingerprints that cost even more bucks. I've educated around 300 children, some of them in college now and I still don't make the salary I made as a s/w engineer. I've furnished my classroom with teaching aids and student games over the years to the tune of even more bucks.  I wish my school were unionized as that is what would have prevented myself and 28 other competent people from being treated like yesterday's disposable goods.

And, for what it's worth, and I speak as both parent and teacher, textbooks are a teacher's province. That's why we get advanced degrees  and attend instructional materials workshops, so we can make informed decisions.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm with you on treating teachers well.  I'd like to see the money spent on the classroom and on the people teaching the kids.  Everyone would, except the people making the decisions on how to spend the money.

My response was to someone saying the Republicans 'made teachers the enemy'.  Ridiculous.

[Ben Shockley]

  ...And, for what it's worth, and I speak as both parent and teacher, textbooks are a teacher's province. That's why we get advanced degrees  and attend instructional materials workshops, so we can make informed decisions.

Oh, degrees schmegrees, UC.  Don't you know that textbooks --and the teachers who use them-- are properly used to buttress the message of fundamentalist-"Christian" churches?  Hey, churches in the U.S. are losing membership, so if the little bastards won't show up on Sundays, we gotta get 'em the 5 days when they aren't paying attention!
Fundamentalist leaders keep social power primarily through controlling their members' worldview.  Nothing threatens a religious fundamentalist, of whatever professed religion, more than options for the youth of their group.  And empirical science-- as an option to "revealed knowledge" and faith-- is an especially scary option, because it specifically stresses decision-making based on real observations.  And when presented with the real facts of life, and allowed to make a decision, what kid would choose to stick with an oppressive fundamentalist church and lifestyle?

So yeah, UC-- it's best to just shut up and let them deacons and choir-member moms in Texas make your textbook decisions.  It's your job to make it easier for them to inculcate faith in their spiritually-imperiled youth.

Take this as a very indirect "Amen" (no pun intended) to Nowhere's cheerleading for political activism.