Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: damn communists & marxists & socialists

Posted 2 years ago on July 1, 2012, 7:41 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


To quote a truly great Rs "I'd rather they die - and decrease the surplus population."

151 Comments

151 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by Occupyallst (12) 2 years ago

This is incredibly ignorant. All three of them were capitalist. I suggest you learn the meaning of communism, marxism and socialism beore you bash an ideology and accuse someone of a radical leftist. According to Obama's foreign policy and ideals, he is a moderate republican, not a socialist. Stop spreading false propaganda.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I would suggest that only Roosevelt among these was truly a capitalist. Both Obama and Johnson would more accurately be considered imperialists in that they work primarily for an empire, the globalist financial empire.

Both the republican and democrat parties today are mostly imperialist in that they work for that same financial empire.

Roosevelt was the only one who stood in opposition to the financial empire, in support of the American republic, even though he was originally born into the empire.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Obama not socialist enough! Don't you think we need extreme socialist approach to our problems.

http://www.news-press.com/article/20130127/OPINION/301270036/President-Obama-unbound-socialist-agenda

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

No, I think we need real capitalism, a system that was intended to allow everybody to accumulate capital for the improvement of their own lives.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think we are stronger when we help each other.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I agree, but think that this can be accomplished in the capitalist system as well, such as through large scale public works.

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

And what makes you think that the status quo is anything but "real" capitalism?
Guess what companies are going to do under any capitalist system? Try to manipulate their local/national laws to create a favorable situation for themselves. Given a person/company born into riches and a person born into poverty, guess who wins under any capitalist system? The rich person, almost every time, because they have a starting advantage. This compounds itself over time, and is what we call an "establishment". Because money can be exchanged for any other resource, while resources cannot always be exchanged for any other resource, guess who accumulates the most power? The people whose main activity is controlling money.

What qualities, exactly, separate capitalism from "real" capitalism?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I wouldn't call the status quo "real" capitalism, because our system is being subverted by the global oligarchy. So it is a system in which imperialism and real capitalism are mixed together, with imperialism gradually taking the whole system over.

The founders of America came here to escape the feudal, imperialist systems of Europe, in which one was born into a class and was never allowed to rise above his class by his own efforts. Our founders wanted to make America into a place where anybody could rise from whatever position he was born into.

This involved establishing a system in which profits for owners and salaries for workers could rise together, as is explained in the book "The Olive Branch", by Mathew Carey:

"The Olive Branch consolidated the principle of “the harmony of interests” between labor and capital, which was the focus of Carey’s American System economic theory, itself based on the economics of Alexander Hamilton. He called for a political alliance of farmers, laborers, industrialists, and merchants, with their representatives in government, saying that by joining forces they could “raise profits and wages at the same time,” through development of technology and the productivity of labor."

Eventually, we developed a system in which factory workers, with only a high school education, could earn four or five thousand dollars a month, equivalent to what many professionals earned.

In such factories, it was advantageous to the owners, for the workers to develop high skill levels, develop their own businesses as specialized contractors to the factories, creating a win/win situation in which both owner's and worker's earnings would rise.

We need to return to a system in which we recognize that one's profit is not attained from the loss of another, but rather that the greatest profit is attained from the profit of another. This is the principle on which the nation state was founded, and allowed the flourishing of the Renaissance.

[-] -3 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

"I wouldn't call the status quo "real" capitalism, because our system is being subverted by the global oligarchy. So it is a system in which imperialism and real capitalism are mixed together, with imperialism gradually taking the whole system over." What is the fundamental difference between capitalism and imperialism? Taken from Wikipedia: "Imperialism, [...] is the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit. Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system." Capitalism is based on private ownership (inequality of economy and territory), include capital accumulation and competitive markets (dominance and subordination). The only real difference between them is capitalism is an economic system while imperialism is a political system. They are exactly the same virus, one for economic agents and one for nation-states.

"The founders of America came here to escape the feudal, imperialist systems of Europe, in which one was born into a class and was never allowed to rise above his class by his own efforts. Our founders wanted to make America into a place where anybody could rise from whatever position he was born into." The founding fathers owned slaves and only allowed land-owning white males to vote.

"In such factories, it was advantageous to the owners, for the workers to develop high skill levels, develop their own businesses as specialized contractors to the factories, creating a win/win situation in which both owner's and worker's earnings would rise." Factory workers made more money in the past because there was much stronger demand for them due to the nonexistence of computerization. Today one factory worker can do the work of dozens or more from the early 20th century. Even numerical control was not invented until the mid-20th century, and today CNC technology has advanced so much that you can build a 3D printer for $500. Meanwhile, the cost of the products has dropped due to advances in manufacturing and logistic efficiency, and globalization allowing poorer countries to fulfill the demand in low-level sectors like manufacturing.

"We need to return to a system in which we recognize that one's profit is not attained from the loss of another, but rather that the greatest profit is attained from the profit of another. This is the principle on which the nation state was founded, and allowed the flourishing of the Renaissance." Profit is a completely nonsensical concept. Money is supposed to be a "medium of exchange", which means it represents trading one thing for another. It has an proportional relationship with energy (Costanza 1980). Profit divides production and consumption into separate actions, but production requires the consumption of energy and the conversion of materials from one form to another, and usually consumption of some of those materials. The extraction of those materials also requires irrecoverable energy input and deals damage to the environment. So, every act of production results in a net loss, not a net gain.

Monetary economics assumes that subjective valuation is exactly equal to some function of supply and demand; Except in reality, the only model to successfully predict prices is the one cited above, which calculates the embodied energy of a product. The real basis of a price is not supply or demand, but the amount of energy consumed in producing a good or rendering a service. It follows, then, that profit is an increase in energy consumption and thus can only be compatible with growth-based economics.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

By the way, while in my other post, I emphasize the private aspect of capitalism, in real American capitalism, there is also a large public component. This is the investment in infrastructure development, such as FDR did with the New Deal, or JFK did with the space program.

The large public component moves the totality of the economy forward, while private capitalists adapt to providing the production for whatever specialized goods are needed for development.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

One issue on which I would differ from Wikipedia is that over the past couple hundred years, imperialism has been the domination of companies, not countries, over countries. Consider the British empire, it was run by a corporation, the British East India company, which had attained its wealth by looting India, than it returned home to "colonize" England by buying out its politicians, etc., with the money it had gained. Before the British empire, there was the Dutch empire, which was also a corporate empire, and was the first to establish Wall Street as an imperial outpost:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2011/3842no_need_wall_st.html

Its the same today, combinations of international corporations seek to dominate countries, and Wall Street remains the outpost of that corporate empire in the United States.

Regarding elements of capitalism, I'll say that the accumulation of "capital" is not primarily about money, but rather about the "means of production". Its all the equipment, personnel, and everything that goes into the production process. So the accumulation of capital is mostly about acquiring the means for more efficient production, and the ideal capitalist entity is one that intensively incorporates science into the improvement of production.

Although there is inequality in capitalism, in a true capitalist system, like the US has had from time to time, a growing percentage of the population is given the opportunity to accumulate capital, and pass it on to their children, giving them an advantage. Ideally, as a capitalist system grows, it will produce more and better opportunities for everybody.

Capitalism is different from imperialism in that its based on the accumulation of capital, while imperialism is based on the tearing down and liquidation of capital. The most recent example would be the removal of US manufacturing by "free trade" to be done as sweatshop labor in China. Another example would be the opium wars, in which the British tore down the human capital of China, by addicting them to opium.

The founders of the US weren't perfect, they were to some extent a product of their times, but they also introduced something new and better than any other country had, and this drew many foreigners to immigrate to America.

The idea that technology destroys jobs is a hoax. Its something the imperialists promote to justify their tearing down of accumulated capital. They like to get counter culture ideologies to help them with this.

In terms of real American style, capitalist economic science, "profit" should be thought of more as "free energy".

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

"The idea that technology destroys jobs is a hoax. Its something the imperialists promote to justify their tearing down of accumulated capital." You're just making shit up. Orthodox explanations of unemployment rates are all about the "business cycle" and lack of competition, capital investment, consumption, and all the usual nonsense. "So the accumulation of capital is mostly about acquiring the means for more efficient production, and the ideal capitalist entity is one that intensively incorporates science into the improvement of production." Too bad that production efficiency in a capitalist economy is already peaking. Efficiency in the future can come from locality (densification of humans and production supply chains), use of renewable energy, manufacturing only on days where there is enough available energy (i.e. not 24/7/365), reduction of demand for products, increased product longevity, usership over private ownership, reduction in international trade, modular standardization, and increased connectivity of supply chains. None of these are compatible with capitalism, whether "real" or not.
"Real" capitalism still requires the assumption of scarcity; that we need to accumulate more capital because there is not enough supply to fulfill human demand. In reality, demand must be created, because "infinite wants" is made up to justify continual growth. "Real" capitalism, if that is what the country was founded on, is obviously easily corruptible, since the cheaters always win, and the non-cheaters are always marginalized. If all the other countries with similarly corrupt economic systems are not "real" capitalists, then it demonstrates how improbable it is to start and maintain a "real" capitalist system. If they are "real" capitalists, then it shows that capitalism is capitalism, and it is always susceptible to dominance by corrupt institutions and establishments. Capitalists could never truly incorporate science because the only science that supports it is economics. Economics is only able to support capitalism by simply assuming the basic components work as intended, and then simulate humans as rational self-maximizers in isolated environments with no competing sociotechnical institutions such as governments, religions, gift economies, or the ecosystem. The behavior of humans, which economics is supposed to study, is modeled based on characteristics which has not only never been proven by any economist, but has actually been proven the opposite of reality by psychologists and sociologists (e.g. higher pay leads to better productivity regardless of the type of work).
Capitalism is actually just Feudalism 1.1, except instead of being granted land being able to use common land, your family must have land, or you must work disproportionately harder than everyone else in order to acquire it yourself.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Making things up am I? Consider the Wikipedia entry on "luddite":

"Most mainstream economists agree that the benefits technology provides to the economy as a whole (i.e. increased aggregate demand due to falling prices) outweigh the costs of the temporary displacement of particular workers, who can find other work as technology fuels economic growth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Also, consider the history of the last fifty years or so. Back in the day when America had lots of factories, we had high levels of good paying, high skilled employment. Now the technology that those jobs depended on has been liquidated and sold off by imperialists, the work has been moved to China, where it is done by low skilled, poorly paid sweatshop workers.

Capitalism does not require the assumption of scarcity, but rather that the desire for growth is man's fundamental nature.

Yes, human being are corruptible, but every kind of economy on this earth is made up of human being and is therefore corruptible.

Capitalism is not necessarily opposed to other institutions such as governments, religions or ecosystem, but rather should work together in harmony with these.

One example would be NAWAPA, a proposal for the greatest aqueduct system that has ever existed. It would bring a portion of the vast unused water supplies from Alaska to the central American deserts. This is a government project but would create many millions of well paid jobs for workers as well as innumerable business opportunities for factories to produce the necessary components.

NAWAPA would create a vast agricultural region out of the central American desert, and the water, once used, would evaporate and be distributed around the country as rain, allowing ecosystems to flourish everywhere.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the Luddite argument comes from an idea of europian expansionist

(that there's are new resources for those that loss jobs)

and is not a valid in a closed non colonial world

.

China built their own factories

just like other nations do.

.

the shipped over sea claim is an egocentric delusion

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Closed systems only exist artificially. The fundamental nature of the universe is not entropic, but anti-entropic.

China built their own factories for who? Not their own population, since most Chinese people can't afford those products. This is why China's economy is following the western economies downward.

[-] -3 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

The economy is a closed system because we are not currently raping other planets for all their valuable resources and turning them into cheap crap that breaks in 2 years.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

It sounds to me like your mind is the closed system.

[-] -3 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

Did you read the part where they still lost their jobs? The "Luddite fallacy" asserts that it doesn't matter that they lost their jobs (from a coldly rational, top-down perspective, not from the perspective of, you know, actual humans) because technological and economic growth ensure a net increase in the number of jobs. However, today, there is not a net increase in the number of jobs. In fact, unemployment has been steady for years, with most new hires being those over the age of 55, and 80% of employment being in the service industry. The service industry is the most abstract of economic sectors; There is nowhere else to go from there.

"Also, consider the history of the last fifty years or so. Back in the day when America had lots of factories, we had high levels of good paying, high skilled employment. Now the technology that those jobs depended on has been liquidated and sold off by imperialists, the work has been moved to China, where it is done by low skilled, poorly paid sweatshop workers."

Consider that fifty years ago, we didn't have high-powered computers that can run the factories with hardly any human input. Also consider that we still have those factories, it's just that the cost of products is so low that new factory workers are too costly to train. You are not going to prevent this from happening in a post-globalism society. It is exactly what capitalism is designed to do: Create the highest-revenue product at the lowest cost. Most of the cost, the overwhelming majority of it in fact, is labor costs. Now that it's possible to skip human labor entirely, that's what's going to happen. This isn't the same as the Luddites, because the Luddites were being replaced by mechanized textile equipment, not fully-automated clothing factories. You are so wrong that even John Maynard Keynes agrees with technological unemployment:

“We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not yet have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come-namely, technological unemployment. This means unemployment due to our discovery of means of economizing the use of labor outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labor.”

"Capitalism does not require the assumption of scarcity, but rather that the desire for growth is man's fundamental nature. " Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the principle of scarcity is, and is completely wrong. Want me to do disprove that the desire for growth is man's fundamental nature? I do not desire growth. Herman Daly does not desire growth. The Hadza tribe does not desire growth. There is nothing natural about capitalism.

"Capitalism is not necessarily opposed to other institutions such as governments, religions or ecosystem, but rather should work together in harmony with these."

Yes, that's exactly what it does today, and the lack of treatment of this fact is why economists, and the silly fools that follow what they say, think that the current system is anomalous, and that there is such as thing as "real" capitalism and "corporatism" or whatever meaningless neologism you can come up with. When capitalism works with government, exactly the thing that OWS is protesting is what happens.

"One example would be NAWAPA, a proposal for the greatest aqueduct system that has ever existed. It would bring a portion of the vast unused water supplies from Alaska to the central American deserts. This is a government project but would create many millions of well paid jobs for workers as well as innumerable business opportunities for factories to produce the necessary components." That sounds like a typical capitalist project, and also a monstrous waste of resources and a reckless, irresponsible thing to do to the environment in both Alaska and the desert.

"NAWAPA would create a vast agricultural region out of the central American desert, and the water, once used, would evaporate and be distributed around the country as rain, allowing ecosystems to flourish everywhere."

...You don't really "get" ecology, do you?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Today there is not an increase in the number of jobs? Thanks for making my point, we are suffering from imperialism, not capitalism. There is no technological growth, there is technological liquidation, so there are no new jobs.

You want to cite Keynes as an authority? He was both an imperialist and a fascist:

"Now, Keynes's system is based upon the British Empire, in terms of system. Keynes was a fascist. That's his background, as he said in the German edition, which is the first edition of his General Theory, published in 1938 in Berlin. He said he preferred to have his book published in Germany, at that time, because it would have a better reception and be more applicable in Nazi Germany, than it would be in a democratic country. And he was right."

You do not want growth? This tells me more about you than it does about human nature.

These days, most environmentalists don't get ecology. They think it is about sacrificing man to the gods of nature.

[-] -3 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

There is no technological growth? Are you posting this from Universe B?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, that's right laser's have higher energy requirements, but that's just the same as saying that progress has higher energy requirements, and the fact that we haven't gone there yet indicates that we are not progressing. Laser cutting is not a new technology, which is why we should already be using it on a wider scale:

"The productivity increases with laser metal-working results from, first, the impossibility of wearing out a laser. Down-time to sharpen steel tools and replace them is eliminated; the laser can run continuously as long as it has materials to work on.

Second, if the laser is combined with the simplest computer control, one worker can supervise more than one laser machine station. Because the laser is cutting or drilling or welding more precisely than any steel-on-steel machine, fewer-if any steps are required after its use to clean rough edges. A laser generates less waste and uses less material per part produced, with significant savings.

These savings are also obtained using laser machining which can replace a wide variety of mechanical devices. It is estimated that 20 to 30 percent of U. S. metal machining could make use of laser technology."

Thinking that the role of imperialism in dismantling the US rail system can't be proven is just a sign of being too stupid and lazy to do the research, but I will provide a glimpse of what is just the tip of the iceberg:

"The 1980 “free-enterprise” rail deregulation was the excuse for financial circles (interconnected with London directly and indirectly), and with the Big Five (as of 1998) rail cartel companies—Union Pacific/Southern Pacific, CSX, Norfolk Southern, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Consolidated Rail (ConRail)—to restructure the industry to maximize speculation and short-term returns on profit."

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

No, I wasn't talking about money, you obviously know nothing about manufacturing.

Yes, I know about the upfront costs of trains. You obviously know nothing about the public component involved in capitalism.

Regarding manufacturing technology:

"Metal working: the use of beams and lasers for more efficient, higher speed, and more easily automated metal cutting, forming, and welding is a well-established technology which awaits cheap high-power lasers for its widespread application. Less well known, but with perhaps greater impact, are applications of surface heat-treating, differential. crystallization, and laser annealing."

You obviously know nothing about it.

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

No, I actually know about all sorts of manufacturing technologies. I also know that newer techniques always have higher energy requirements and are not for every job, every time. Laser cutting is actually not a new or particularly inaccessible technology; It's also not some sort of super-technology for manufacturing that would make society better if it were used for all manufacturing. That's kids' stuff. Laser cutting results in uneven internal stresses compared to forging, milling, and hydrocutting. It also uses way more power than all three, and REQUIRES FUCKING LASERS. Have you ever worked with lasers? Neither have I, because they're a giant, ridiculous pain in the ass to maintain and they're very dangerous to be around if you're not a technician.

I know there's a public component to capitalism. Basically, I just wanted you to mention that so that I could point out that there's a public and private component to the modern system and still no trains, and don't just say "derp it was impurrialism" because that's fucking stupid and a totally unprovable and unsupported statement.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, technological growth has been turned back substantially. We have new gadgets, such as Ipods, etc. But technology that really matters has been cutback.

The example I've already given is the liquidation of factories, places where important technological development normally occurs. It used to be that around 30% of our economy was in manufacturing, now its something like 6%. We should be using lasers in factories to fabricate metals by now on a large scale.

New sources of energy have been drastically cut back, we are developing no new nuclear plants these days, while Asians countries are putting them up as fast as they can. In the not too distant future, we'll see who made the right decision. We should also be moving rapidly on developing fusion energy. If we had been, we'd probably have had a fusion plant operating by now.

Advanced transportation technologies have been neglected. We should have a high speed, electric train network, like the Chinese already have. Not only that, but we should have been moving towards magnetic levitation, like the train that the Chinese already have in Shanghai.

Science education is far behind in the US, according to statistics showing that our students are behind both European and Asian students. I teach English to kids here in China, so I hear a lot about their studies. Its compulsory here for students to take about six years of physics, while in the US, students are required to take only one year of science.

All this is due to backwards, Luddite thinking on a wide scale in America, promoted by elites, just as its always been done, to try to keep us down.

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

Are you using monetary figures to get those values? You're assuming that if factory output grows, it will grow proportionally with the rest of the economy. This is silly, if factories become more productive, and especially if the extraction sector becomes more productive, the price of manufactory output is going to drop, and so will its representation in the aggregate. This is why money gives no real information; Basically every conclusion obtained from monetary values is useless, incorrect, or much easier to obtain through direct measurement.

"Advanced transportation technologies have been neglected. We should have a high speed, electric train network, like the Chinese already have. Not only that, but we should have been moving towards magnetic levitation, like the train that the Chinese already have in Shanghai."

I thought you wanted capitalism. Do you realize that a train requires an enormous amount of up-front investment that does not get paid back for a long time, if at all? Why do you think we use cars over here? Because the profits are higher and the paybacks are shorter.

"We should be using lasers in factories to fabricate metals by now on a large scale."

So basically, you don't know anything about how manufacturing technology or energy actually works. No wonder you think capitalism is a good idea.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Here is some more on job loss vs. job creation due to technological development:

Under conditions of relatively fixed technology, the most economical "raw materials" sources are depleted, forcing increased emphasis on less economical resources. This adds to the cost of production, lowering the rate of profit, and thus lowering the rate at which productive workplaces are created. To maintain rates of profits, then, marginal production is closed down, causing an absolute reduction in productive employment.

Under conditions of relatively high rates of profitability of production, employment rates decline only if credit is either too highly priced, or if credit is simply not available to promote investment of surplus product and productive capacity into expansion of productive workplaces.

Under conditions of high rates of technological progress, combined with "dirigist" credit policies, there is a relatively high rate of job-changing, but also a high rate of growth of total productive employment. Moreover, if the rate of technological improvement is sufficiently high, the average real wage of the total productive labor force will increase at significant rates.

So, to repeat the key point: one must distinguish between the rate of change of total number of productive workplaces filled and the rate at which members of the labor force are changing employment under conditions of high rates of technological change. A high rate of job mobility is not a rate of loss of total number of jobs.

However, if trade unions are foolish enough to oppose technological progress under the delusion that technology reduces the number of jobs available, then stagnation and depression will soon enough destroy increasing proportions of the total number of productive workplaces filled.

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

That's very cute and self-satisfying internal logic. Too bad it doesn't agree with reality.

In fact, employment is the same as it was in the 50s, the favorite period of every capitalist.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/EMRATIO.txt

Universal employment is a comforting fantasy.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Today's employment statistics are nowhere near accurate.

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

For all the things I'm saying that are wrong, I don't see you posting any corrections.

I've had enough of your boring, self-aggrandizing rhetoric. Why don't you go post on ATS or something.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, those points are not clear at all.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Most of what you say lacks sufficient clarity to comment on.

[-] -2 points by Ackhuman (-88) from Fairfax, VA 1 year ago

It's not clear enough that employment rates have not even varied by 10% since 1948? That there has never been a golden age of capitalism, as everyone loves to tell themselves?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Perhaps so, these days, as capitalism has been subverted by imperialism. It would have been different though if we had continued in the same vein as presidents such as JFK or FDR.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Oh well. We didn't continue. Guess we'll have to try socialism. Damn!

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Perhaps, or we could try to do once again what was previously successful for us.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

What exactly "has been previously successful"?

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The administrations of JFK and FDR.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Ok. I suppose I could support that.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Glad to hear that.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

So how do we do that?.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

First pass Glass Steagall, second establish a national bank to create credit for economic development, finally, invest the credit into large scale infrastructure development projects, which will increase the productivity of our economy, while creating millions of jobs.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

We tried passing a strong Volcker rule (Glass Steaglish,) and we have an infrastructure bank plan but both have been obstructed.

But I like those proposals, and I submit we must pressure all pols to pass them.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, the Volker rule will not do, it hasn't worked for us. We need Glass Steagall exactly the way Franklin Roosevelt did it, as well as an infrastructure bank.

I'm glad you like these proposals, there's really no alternative now. Unfortunately, its do or die.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 1 year ago

Well best thing is to identify the obstructionists and target them for retirement. Then try again.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

We do need real progressives in power.

Money out of politics, change campaign/election laws to create fair 3rd party access, and we will have something closer o a socialist because most people WILL support socialist/progressive principles.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

From what I've seen, most progressive don't have clear plans for economic development. Roosevelt had a clear economic development plan - the New Deal.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

You are absolutely wrong about progressies not having clear economic plans! Sounds like wishful thinking. Not only do progressives have clear economic plans, but they far and away much better for the 99% than the 3 decades old trickle down, weak regs, outsourcing strategy of the opposite side.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I would agree that economic plans of the last three decades were worthless, but what are the plans of the progressives?

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

End trickle down, Sanders tax fairness act.

http://vtdigger.org/2013/02/08/sanders-proposes-tax-fairness-act/

For one. How do you feel about that.?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Sure, that's good, but its not economic development, which is actually improving the condition of the economy. This generally means the building or improvement of existing infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Let's do infrastructure, housing & greentech industry/job investment

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Ok, but as part of "greentech" I would recommend NAWAPA, the proposed North American Water and Power Alliance, which would be the biggest aqueduct project ever in history.

50% of the US's fresh water falls as rain in Alaska, and runs off unused into the ocean. NAWAPA would bring 20% of that to the central American desert to create an agricultural area, where there was previously nothing but barren desert.

Once used in agriculture, the water would evaporate and be distributed as rain throughout the nation, allowing ecosystems to flourish everywhere.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Wow.
i'm unfamiliar with that plan. I like the sound of it. And I will check it out.

Thanks

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the government forgets that it runs on taxes

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

We've had presidents who were strong on economics, such as JFK and FDR. Today, unfortunately, I think the problem is worse than the government just forgetting.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

cor·rupt /kəˈrəpt/

Adjective

Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

Verb

Cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

Synonyms

adjective. rotten - depraved - venal - bad - putrid

verb. spoil - pervert - deprave - vitiate - rot - debauch

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I'd agree the government today is quite corrupt, if that's what you are saying, but would add that government is not necessarily corrupt, and that we have at times had good government.

Are you suggesting that FDR and JFK were corrupt?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

can't say

don't know enough

they've both from Harvard

like Obama, Gore, Bush, Romney and that guy who claims he invented social media.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, that's true, they both came from oligarchical families as well. But as the man said, you can tell a tree by its fruit, and both JFK's and FDR's administrations produced good fruit, that is, prosperous economies.

[-] 0 points by FifeAndDrum (8) 1 year ago

FDR - Confiscation of private citizens gold. Trying to pack the Supreme Court with more justices when he didn't get his way. Putting 110,000 Japanese-Americans in interment camps. Yes, FDR was definitely corrupt.

Read "The Forgotten Man", by Amity Shlaes

Yes, FDR was corrupt to the bone. BTW, the New Deal is bankrupting us today.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

no, that would be all the loans we took from the rich to fight world war II

remember little orphan annie and daddy warbucks?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2157) 1 year ago

The New Deal saved capitalism is that why you call FDR corrupt?

[-] 0 points by FifeAndDrum (8) 1 year ago

I think I spelled it out for you. Figure it out.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2157) 1 year ago

No thanks, Discussing Politicians being corrupt is not surprising, interesting, or why I comment here.

Taxes, wages, jobs, etc. Any of that would valuable and worthy of comments

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Sorry, I don't buy it, I believe the overall direction of FDR was towards a better world, and that the movement away from FDR's policies is what's bankrupting us today.

[-] 1 points by FifeAndDrum (8) 1 year ago

OK, I accept that. You're a drone. There's not much that can be done to help you.

Keep on keeping on.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Don't need your help, try helping yourself.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the government subsists tax to create services for the general welfare of the public

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Do you support that creation of services for the public?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

yes

the system supports us

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Well that is just ducky. I support helping those in need. that benefits us all.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

everyone has needs

those can be better addressed in volume for efficiency and simplicity

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

And frequently more fairly when profits are removed.

People over profits. Public option healthcare now.!

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

obama is a statist ( fascist)..

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

FDR rules! Obama is a pale comparison, A transitional placeholder, not progressive, simply a last moderate in the 30 year trip from progressive to right ofcenter dem party to the future return of FDR pogressiveness.

Keep pushing. We the people can push this country from the right wing ideology that has destroyed the middle class.

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

obama is not a moderate. the destruction of the midde INCOME ( not class) people is the obama adminstraions agenda.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We need a progressive leader to raise taxes on the (the takers) wealthy, and cut taxes on the real job creators (consuming working/middle CLASS 99%'rs)

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I agree with a lot of what you've said here, and would concur that tax reform is quite important. But if generating revenue is your concern, I think the more important issues are having a national bank, and an economic development program like the New Deal.

Another essential point, as far as generating revenue is concerned, is a primary focus on the development of science and technology. New technologies are what stimulate the economy, by enabling us to produce more from less.

The example would be JFK's space program, which resulted in ten dollars worth of economic development for every dollar invested in it. The space program yielded benefits ranging from agriculture to medicine, etc., and created a whole new industry, aerospace, which employed both blue and white collar workers in high paying jobs.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No country has invented more, and invests more in R&D than us. There are some shortsighted austerity lovers, budget cutters who want to cut all spending to protect the wealthy (who are sitting on $1T+ hoarded wealth).

Time to raise money from those who've hoarded it, and invest in future industries & job creation.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Actually, we could establish a national bank which would provide the credit necessary to invest in job creation.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm not entirely against that. I would still need to see the wealthy finely pay their fair share.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This is a progressive proposal

Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act

Background After repeated efforts by conservative Washington politicians to reenact the same failed policies, Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) took action. CPC Members traveled across the country listening to the American people. Americans told us they want work and that cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and education is unacceptable; they want big banks to clean up the mess they made and millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

Act for the 99% This bill is a comprehensive package of emergency jobs legislation, sensible revenue raisers, cuts to unnecessary weapons platforms and measures to strengthen and protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Act for the 99% creates over 5 million jobs over the next two years and reduces the budget deficit by over $2 trillion over the next ten years while protecting the programs Americans rely on.

KEY JOBS CREATION PROVISIONS

Emergency jobs to put America to Work: creates 2.2 million jobs through on-the-job training and direct hire programs for cops, teachers, firefighters, construction and maintenance workers for schools, parks and public land workers, work study jobs for students, health providers including nurses and assistants and a new Community Corp to take care of our neighborhoods. Buy America: requires materials for government contracts are manufactured in the U.S. Infrastructure bank: creates an infrastructure bank that will allow private sector partnering with regions, States and localities to create infrastructure projects Protection of our wounded veterans – ensures that our veterans are not discriminated against in the workplace for time spent receiving treatment for injuries Investment in infrastructure and transportation – provides $50 billion to fix our crumbling roads, bridges, rail lines, sewer systems and to upgrade power lines and mass transit systems

REVENUE INCREASES AND SAVINGS

Fairness in taxation – requires people that make over $1 million a year to pay their fair share, raising $800B Defense spending - A rare consensus has emerged among a wide range of policymakers, deficit reduction plan must tackle Defense spending. Ending unnecessary programs saves $280B Unchecked war spending - restricting spending in Afghanistan to planning and executing a responsible troop withdrawal saves ≈ $1.2 T Oil and gas industry and polluter taxes – the oil and gas corporations are among the most profitable on Earth; ending tax giveaways and requiring polluters to clean up their mess will raise over $60B Wall Street and speculators tax - The financial sector shattered the global economy – this 0.03 percent tax disincentivizes dangerous speculation by slightly raising the cost to trade which raises $350B Making Work Pay Tax Credit – this progressive tax refund that would put money into the pockets of those that need it most to boost the economy would be extended for 2 years

PROTECTING MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Public option – allowing a public option to operate with private in the health care exchanges saves $88B Negotiate drug prices – allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical saves $156B Enhancing Medicaid rates – the fastest way to support state governments would be to restore the increased federal Medicaid matching rates Scrapping Social Security cap - Social Security by law cannot contribute to the deficit; however people making over $106,800 do not pay taxes on the additional income. To ensure long-term solvency, this requires anyone making over $250,000 to pay the normal social security tax on their upper income.

^^^

Dear Friend,

We co-chair the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and unlike far too many of our colleagues in Washington, we know that the 99% is right – we need bold action right now to turn our economy around.

That’s why we introduced a new bill in Congress yesterday, the “RESTORE the American Dream for the 99% Act.” It takes ideas that more than 130,000 of you shared to build the Contract for the American Dream and puts them into a comprehensive bill to fix our broken economy: creating 5 million jobs in two years, ending the war in Afghanistan, and establishing a new tax on millionaires and Wall Street greed, among many others.

The bill provides grants for on-the-job training, invests $50 billion to rebuild our roads and bridges, creates a national infrastructure bank and includes a strong “Buy America” provision to make sure our government contracts employ people right here at home.

We’d love for you to take a look at the bill for yourself. Please let us know what you think.

Thank you so much for all your support.

Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva and Rep. Keith Ellison

Co-chairs

Congressional Progressive Caucus

[+] -4 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

keith ellison is a muslim and not ever to be trusted or believed. a healthy economy occurs is when the govt does not have strangle hold on the public through regulations that inhibit them.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Regulations protect the 99% from greedy, selfish, corp capitalists tendency to put profits over peoples safety/interests.

Do you have a problem with muslims? I don't.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Most regulations in business are the result of big business lobbying to put the smaller competitors out of business. That is how fascism works.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Which ones? We can get rid of regs that protect big business and hurt small business as long as we don't hurt the people.

Regulations protect the 99% from greedy, selfish, corp capitalists tendency to put profits over peoples safety/interests.

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

Yes , I do.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Let's look at War - The agreement that War is Bad should

1) Unite people to Demand Deeper Democracy
2) Unite people to critize both the Rs & Ds
3) Unite people to see the stupidity of our Congress (with the Power of the Budget)
4) Unite people to see how we are all controlled, haven't had participatory government or true representation
5) Unite people to see the Power of Money and the Lobby to twist our government into a Right Wing Empire
6) Unite people to see the Power and Control of Defense Corporations
7) Unite people to see How Our Government dehumanizes all people ... probably in favor of corporations
8) Unite people to see Government Waste
9) Unite people to see that the Congress is uncaring

Clearly Politics in the USA is about "Not Being" other things. Our politicians are Not Socialist, Not Communist, Not Fascist ... they only prove this by being a "Republican" or "Democract" ... which are Lables or Fascades. A Democract that supports war is either not Progressive or he is "Playing" the game. Republicans that support foreign wars are not "Conservative Fiscally, or Militarily". Constant War proves Rightwing membership and alignment with corporations or other powers.

Consider we are "Not Being" a democracy, since we don't allow the Third Parties equal access, equal platforms, equal air time, equal place in all the debates. This is not Plato's Democracy. When was the last time you saw or heard someone from the Socialist Party, the Social Workers party, or the Communist Party ...speak on TV, Cable, or Radio.

Frankly, I think many Americans are so Fascist, they would beat up any socialist, marxist, or communist that got on TV. Probably, we would see some socialist get killed....

So, yeah, politicians are "Not" socialist. But we live in a Socialist Country since we have popular social programs like unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Social Education in grades 1-12 secondary schools.

So, I guess we have a Dichotoy: Rightwing Empire with Socialist Programs controlled by a Fascist State. Oh yeah, we have clear politics through the 2 party system.

War is the central Gavlinizing Issue that can produce change in our Political System, but ... we don't really tell the truth in MSM. We don't really have much democracy in our political system structured on Rs & Ds.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

most of your 9 points could be vastly improved by ending corporate personhood & citizens united
THAT is an achieveable goal

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

But we have Fascists in this country on one side that spout off their mouths to criticize radio, tv, and cable new reports ... and they fight tooth & nail for their advantages in the workforce and in the economy.

So, seems like you would be going after the guys that fight the hardest, and use networks strongly to pass false information, and they have what seems like the loudest voices per capita.

Everyone chooses their fight. I'm not sure I have choosen my fight. But seems like this War thing keeps coming up for me...

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I think Obama & Hagel are slowing down our war machine

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Hope so, man. They have a plan. Whatever happens it was their plan or they enabled it.

[-] 2 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

hAs the Civil War came to an end, America began the transition from a preindustrial society into the industrial age. The period from 1870 to 1920 saw many changes in America, and at the end of that era, it had become the largest economy in the world—one that was far less dependent on nature than it once had been, according to R. Cowan.

"In a preindustrialized society, the size of the population changes in a more or less cyclical fashion. If the weather cooperates and the crops are bounteous and peace prevails, people remain reasonably healthy and many children live past infancy; over the course of time the population will grow. But eventually the population will grow too large to be supported by the available land or the land itself will become infertile. Droughts may come or heavy rains; locusts may infest the fields or diseases may strike the cattle. Men will be drawn off to battle just when it is time to plow the fields or soldiers engaged in battles will trample the wheat and burn the barns. Then starvation will ensue. People will succumb to disease; fewer children will be born, and more of them will die in infancy. The population will shrink.

Once a country has industrialized, natural disasters and wars do not seem to have a long-term effect on the size of its population; the rate of increase may slow for a few years or so, but there is still an increase. And the standard of living keeps rising as well. People stay relatively healthy; they live longer lives. Generally speaking, they can have as many (or as few) children as they want, knowing that, also generally speaking, most of their children will live past infancy. This is the salient characteristic that makes underdeveloped countries long for development: industrialized countries seem able to support extraordinarily large populations without any long-term collapse either in the size of the population or in the standard of living."

We had an industrialized economy in the United States until private enterprise outsourced our manufacturing with the US Chamber of Commerce's and Republican Party's blessings.

Rachel Maddow - Chamber of Commerce promotes outsourcing jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB0G16VswG8&NR=1&feature=endscreen [right click]

The political rancor of Republicans is fed by their desire to return the country to a pre-New Deal economy where almost all of the job creation is in the private sector and driven by profit. This would be setting the clock back to the Roaring Twenties, 50 years after the Civil War. This represents trillions of dollars wasted in the last century without finding a sustainable solution for the national economy.

This is the dynamic of a postwar deregulated economy based consumerism for the last 50 years at least. This always has been the Republican strategy. The private sector based economy driven by consumerism and higher profits relocated production offshore to increase profits with lower labor costs which had the unintended consequence of decreasing disposable income here which fed consumption. There should be no surprise that the country is on the brink of another Great Depression.

What the country needs to do is recapture job creation in the public sector as a counterbalance to the private sector to guarantee that the unemployment rate never exceeds a minimum level and that a living wage is paid to every worker that is high enough to sustain optimal consumption levels which should establish a living standard.

Consumption level should be the driving influence behind production instead of profits. This would be supported by a New Deal approach. There has to be a shift in the thinking in industry to favor consumers above profit.

Ed Bernays on Propaganda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs&feature=related [right click]

Corporate Propaganda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jexp9A6QaDU&feature=related [right click]

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Socialism is when the means of production are socialized. These policies are not examples of socialism.

All of these policies were introduced to mitigate problems caused by capitalism - namely poverty.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I appreciate what you have put together and I confess that although I have read a lot about other presidents, it isn't courage or the lack thereof that keeps me from answering your challenge, but ignorance. I have not studied FDR, although I admire him, in a way that I could predict his positions on these issues.

I gather that some are balking at your choice of issues and the way you have summarized them, so let them do their own list and share it, and we can make our own judgements, as we no doubt will.

I copied your list into a spread sheet with the idea of adding other politicians to the list and perhaps other issues. It think it is an interesting exercise and hope you will build on it.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Yeah, if it is like the industrial or computer revolutions.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Only in it's level of affect.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

A truly transformative event.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

It would have to be. I think it is years in the making, & hard work, Setbacks, small successes, & slow progress.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Sometimes those transformative events are recognized for what they are pretty early and proceed at a very rapid rate after the tipping point is recognized.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

Agreed. I think (and hope) we are in just such a transformative events. Time will tell.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Your thoughtful reply spurs me to let the cat out of the bag -
as you and others recognize.
I am fed up with the anti-politicians who are too knee-jerk and too childish to vote for the best candidate - even if he is flawed.


So many in OWS are more loyal
to what they think OWS demands
than they are loyal to what America needs


do you see a parallel with the
congresspeople who are more loyal
to what grover & alec demand
than they are loyal to what America needs?


is OWS a religion?
Is it is religious fanaticism?


WE MUST VOTE for the best electable candidates


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Of course I concur, and I look forward with great anticipation the the answers to your questions, which I am sceptical that you will receive.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

yah just keep pushing that corporate democracy!

You gotta choose this corporate hack because otherwise that corporate hack will win. Keep seeing where that leads. It's not pretty. In fact it still has us bailing out fraudulent banks and never prosecuting them, still has us in Afghanistan establishing that new silk road, and still has bullshit trade deals letting corporations outsource all the jobs and pocket the money for the 1%.

Maybe if we keep voting for people funded by Wall Street, they'll save us from wall street. Do you think it will happen?

You democrats and republicans are incapable of voting for the better option, you have bought into a belief system that you are not able to vote outside the corporate picks because otherwise your corporate guy will lose. The better option runs every year. No one votes for them in the primaries. Instead they believe their corporate propaganda and flock to the booths in herds. On voting day democrats and republicans make me feel like Timmy in Jurassic Park - THEY'RE FLOCKING THIS WAY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM-RPO10aPY

Let me put it in simple terms.

What happens when Goldman Sachs funds both sides? Henry Paulson is chosen by Bush and he joins Congress, including obama, in passing TARP.

What happens when Citi funds both sides? Obama chooses Lew and there's still no regulation in Congress.

And both choose Bernanke, the trillion dollar bailout king pin.

We must vote smart, if anything. This means research, not the tv.

All we have left to stop this corporate takeover is massive levels of civil disobedience. -something I myself even need to work on.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

The inside solution - eliminate corporate personhood & overturn citizens united

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

push that instead. Seriously. It's a real cause. Defending corporate enterprise, like this post is doing is harmful propaganda.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Excellent.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

Here is the TRUTH about Obamacare:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the politicians are against tax to serve the population

but all for rent and bank interest tax

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"the politicians"?
does this include Warren? Clyburn? Sanders? Udall?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I've no idea at this time

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Any ideology that justifies injustice with saying "for the greater good" or whatever is a flawed one.

Freedom is independant from money, the economy, you state of employment. It is about thinking for yourself, not how much money you have in relation to other people.

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism are all equally bad.

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

have you ever lived under socialism? communism or feudalism? they ARE bad. capitalism, flawed but the best system .

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

the best system......so far......

there is always room for improvement, my friend....

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

No damn Capitalist,obviously you are Republican always talking the opposite to truthto confuse the simple minded.,the game is over the people are awake

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Obama belongs more in the same category as Bush, rather than Roosevelt.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

OK - where do you think Obama & Roosevelt & bush
stand on these D / R issues:
my opinion
is O is almost 100% with D
and b is almost 100% with R
Where would Roosevelt stand on these issues? D or R ?

SOCIAL & MEDICAL………….……….………. D ……... R

supports oligarchy………………………………...N ……….Y
against cancer prevention vaccine ….….………N ……… Y
Restrict abortion rights ………………………… N ……… Y
Restrict birth control rights ……………………. N ……….Y
Teach abstinence only ………………………… N ……… Y
support public option ……………………………Y ……… N
support single payer……………………………. Y ……… N
support affordable care act……….…………….Y ……… N
likes the most expensive medical system……. Y ……… N
Global warming is a scientific conspiracy …….N ……… Y
support dream act ……………………………… Y ……… N
support gun control …………………………….. Y ……… N
Against gay rights ……………………………… N ……….Y
Against gay marriage……………………………N ……… Y
Higher education Affordability…………………..Y………. N
Prayer in school ………………………………….N ………Y
Would support 1964 civil rights bill …….………Y ………N

MONEY & TAXES......……............................. D ......... R

Corporations ARE people ……………………...N….……Y
Money IS speech………………………………..N….……Y
Support supply side economics………………..N………Y
Support trickle down economics……………….N………Y
pro-corporate supreme court appointments…..N………Y
pro-people supreme court appointments……..Y………N
signed grover norquist tax pledge……….…….N………Y
member of alec……………………………….….N………Y
Improve profits by outsourcing…………………N………Y
supports lower taxes for corporations…..…….N………Y
eliminate inherintance tax………………..…….N………Y
eliminate capital gains tax………………..…….N………Y
Support oil company subsidies………………...N………Y
Suppoprt tax breaks for rich………………...….N………Y
Food stamp program should be cut…………...N………Y
Decimate medicare………………………..…….N………Y
Decimate Medicaid………………………..…….N………Y
decimate social security……………..…..…….N………Y
reduce bank regulations……...…………..…….N………Y
reduce wall street regulations….……………...N………Y
privatize prison…………………………….…….N………Y
privatize armies………………………………….N………Y
privatize schools……………………………..….N………Y
privatize local government……….………….….N………Y

POLITICS...…………......……...................... D ........ R

Supports Citizens United decision………….…N………Y
signed grover norquist tax pledge………….….N………Y
member of alec…………………………….…….N………Y
most use of blocking with filibuster…………….N………Y
put party ahead of country……………………..N……….Y
Supports voter suppression……………….……N………Y
Supports anti-flag burning laws…..……………N………Y
Legalize Marijuana………………………..….…Y………N
wants to close Guantanamo..…………………Y.….…..N
supports voter registration………………………Y….…..N
lies about birth certificate……………………….N………Y
lies about religion…………………………….….N………Y
always obeys the NRA………..…………….….N………Y

JOBS..………..…….............…….................. D ........ R

GM should be saved…………………………….Y…….…N
The USPS should be saved…………………….Y……….N
Support job exports……………………………...N….……Y
Destroy unions……………………………..…….N…….…Y
Rebuild infrastructure……………………………Y……….N
Build light rail…………………………….………Y……….N
Increase minimum wage……………………..…Y……….N
Creates jobs – in China….…………………..…N……….Y

WAR & MILITARY …………….…………….… D …..…R

killed bin laden……………….…………….…….Y………N
lied to create wars………………………….…….N…….. Y
negligence facilitated terrorist attacks…………N………Y
supports Iraq war……………………………..….N………Y

SCIENCE …………….…………....…………… D …..…R

Evolution is a fact………………………….…….Y………N
Reduce EPA regulations………….…………….N………Y
The earth is less than 10.000 years old……....N………Y
Fracking is good for the planet……….………..N………Y

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

BD's list IS GREAT .... and Truthful .... albeit not conclusive (there are a few exceptions from both sides)....

I believe that 99% of everyone that visits this site wants change ....

I believe that 99% of everyone that visits this site is unhappy with our gov ....

I believe that 99% of everyone that visits this site will work to better this world....

I believe that 99% of everyone that visits this site believe in the People....

I believe that 99% of everyone that visits this site believe in Democracy....

I believe that 99% of everyone that visits this site wants to make a PERFECT world....

When our Loved One's homes are on fire ... do we deny help from the fire truck .... simply because it runs on dirty fuel ?

sometimes in life we must sit back and accept the better of the evils... for just the immediate moment... in the effort to get to perfection....

OWS (ALL 99% of us) do NOT have Direct Democracy in place YET... and likely won't before the coming elections.... WE NEED TO VOTE .... for the BETTER of the evils... this last time.... by next election We WILL all be voting on every issue....

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

That fire truck ran over the people to put out the fire in the banking crisis.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think it all could be reduced to the first listing, concerning whether or not they support oligarchy. Obama and Bush do, or did, while Roosevelt opposed it.

[-] 0 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Your list of comparisons is filled with redundancies, spin, half-truths and outright lies, more than I care to go point-by-point on. Suffice to say this:

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-communists-marxists-socialists/#comment-774700

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Great illustration of the real differences with our 2 parties. We must pressure dems to embrace and vote their progressive principles. Without a real growing protest movement (OWS?) they will drift right, take the 1% contributions, and drink the kool aid. It's up to us.!

[-] 0 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

Here is the TRUTH about Obamacare:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Who signed NDAA 2012? Obama.

Who signed HR347? Obama.

Who signed HR658? Obama.

Who signed HR3606? Obama.

Who gave us Indefinite Detention? Obama.

Who gave us Individual Mandate? Obama.

Who left a mess in Iraq? Obama.

Who made the mess bigger in Afghanistan? Obama.

Who kills thousands of innocent citizens with drones? Obama.

Who DIDN'T close Guantanamo?

Who doesn't deserve his Nobel Peace Prize? Obama.

Who does deserve a sales trophy from the Military Industrial Complex? Obama.

Who's first term as President was essentially Dubya's third? Obama.

Who's second term would be much the same as Romney's first? Obama.

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[-] 4 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Does anyone have the courage to answer my question?
Where would Roosevelt stand?
on any of these issues?
or
where would Jesus stand ?
or
where would you stand ? Anybody ???

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

FDR - would stand for a new deal. Public works improving our infra structure while employing those hurt by the meltdown.

Jesus - would have no part in politics or government - but would be busy denouncing the Pharacies and the money changers and generally verbally tearing them a new asshole.

I stand with the people of the USA and of the world. - Down with corpoRAT abuse - Down with anti-people politics/politicians.

Health and prosperity for all of the People.

People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits. People Over Profits.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

When Jesus healed the sick he didn't ask for a copay!!

And I believe christian belief states "you will be judged by the way you care for the least among you". So I I think it is pretty clear Jesus would support progressive solutions (public option).

(disregard the vvv user! He he is certainly hostile, and clearly partisan anti dem/progressive, Especially don't click on his links no matter how innocent looking. He has threatened many people with virus' and physical violence)

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

Roosevelt stood for world peace, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.

Jesus was the same as Roosevelt with a certan perspective on religion.

I am with Roosevelt.

Roosevelt Four Freedoms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnrZUHcpoNA [right click]

Republicans were against Roosevelt in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944. And they still are. Every Republican president has plunged their daggers into the New Deal, even Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton vs Franklin Roosevelt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkrVsYsQIcg&list=PLC9D27C32BE298724&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]

Robert Scheer vs Larry Summers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heM4mpfLj64&list=PL70FB84A39ACB3206&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 2 years ago

Jesus would certainly stand against evolution, against freedom of religion, against family solidarity with anyone who didn't accept him, against democracy, and would stand for slavery, for teaching abstinence only, and for war and genocide in the cause of divinely claimed commanded land acquisition.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Please do not confuse who & what Jesus stood for
and what PEOPLE say he stood for

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5854) 2 years ago

I don't.

Jesus is a reference to a character in the Christian scriptures. That is the basis of my response to your question. If you want to talk about the historical person that the character Jesus had been based upon, we'll be talking about a man named Y'shw, an ultra-orthodox right-wing extremist whose historical perspectives and activites had more in common with bin-Laden than with the character Jesus.

But if we're going to talk about the character in the Christan scriptures, that character is a religious Jewish character who strongly supports the keeping of the Torah (Matthew 5:17-20, Luke 16:17) which of course means that the character is Creationist (Genesis 1:1-2:24), not evolutionist, supports slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46, Deuteronomy 20:10-11), opposes freedom of religion (Exodus 34:13-14) and the separation of church and state (Deuteronomy 17:18-20), and by default of Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 22:28-29, the teaching of abstinence and even the prohibition of divorce (Matthew 19:3-9, Luke 16:18) not to mention lethal opposition to male homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13).

As the Mashiach/Xristos, the character supports his own monarchy (Matthew 27:11), not a democracy (Deuteronomy 17:15), opposition to those who don't accept him (Matthew 10:34-37), nationalist ethnic discrimination (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:21-28) in contrast to the example provided in his own parable (Luke 10:25-37), and even violence against legal, socially accepted, peacefull business (Mark 11:15-16, John 2:13-16), as well as war (Deuteronomy 20:10-15) and divinely claimed commands of genocide for the cause of land acquisition (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Very specific. Deserves to be bumped for further analysis.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Stop looking back almost 100 years on FDR. Start looking at the people right in front of you.

That list is SOOOOO dumb, I cant even take you seriously anymore as a partisan hack. You are officially just a plain idiot that is controlled by the tv.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Are you afraid to answer the questions?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

FDR would probably be appauled at our current gov. Most with half a brain are.

Jesus, as another poster stated, would not get involved.

The difference between where I stand and where these parties is, I would not care if I got reelected.

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

FDR is dead. Depending on your beliefs, Jesus is either in Heaven or dead too. Do you ever post anything besides Obamapologies, bensdad?

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

Here is the TRUTH about Obamacare:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

I posted a question -
which -
I guess -
you don't have the courage to answer -
or the brains.

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

What you posted is pure pro-regime pro-Obama pro-Democratic Party pro-Two Party Tyranny propaganda, you LSOS...

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

Here is the TRUTH about Obamacare:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The idiot posts hiw idiot list. I can argue both sides of about 90% of your list.

Im suprised you are on OWS and such a dumb, partisan hack. I though most of you had left by now.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

uz pel sew gud

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

giving hundreds of billions to for profit insurance companies is nowhere near a comparison to the new deal or medicare.

What a joke.

Where were the democrats in the democrat majority congress when Dennis Kucinich pushed for a single payer system?

You can keep believing in the corporate democrats, Bensdad, but it's a scam.

Where are the limits on premiums? Where are the regulations saying they can't increase costs due to what condition you're in? They aren't there because the bill was co-authored by for profit insurance companies.

FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE THE PROBLEM NOT THE SOLUTION

If mandatory insurance is a solution then why don't we mandate the homeless to buy a house? - Barack Obama in 2008.

Medicare is awesome. Comparing mandatory for-profit insurance to medicare is pathetic.

As long as you keep praising this corrupt system, there is no hope for a single payer public option. -they don't even talk about it anymore. Have you noticed? Have you ever heard of manufacturing consent?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the corporate strangle in congress can be stopped with one of the dozen amendments congress proposed & that 1,900,000 Americans have signed that they want.

[-] 0 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Well, here's your chance to completely separate republicans and democrats as separate nations, as follows (see Town in spec):

https://docs.google.com/a/strategicinternationalsystems.com/document/pub?id=1mKKLMTIyvRCLK2ppPj_GDjdieCvJnATaZaCmlajubWU

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Today, I would not separate R & D
But I do imagine how much better off America would be today without the CSA no nixon
no reagan
no bush
no iraq
almost no nra power almost no anti-abortion power no privitization of prisons legalized drugs almost no religious right power

[-] 0 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

In your democrat nation (true); in their republican nation (false). Why? Because "separate nations" doesn't mean economically separate nations, for the entire world is economically interdependent. It means politically separate nations at the town-level only, and yet, there is still a single worldwide economic union at the county, state, nation, and world level as per the specification. Therefore, towns are politically sovereign whereas counties, states, nations, and worlds are economically sovereign. Paradox is at the heart of the law (or science).

[-] 0 points by kilroywashere (20) 2 years ago

Commies and Marxies and Pinkos? Oh my...

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

What you posted above is pure political propaganda - Bullshit for short.

Here is the TRUTH:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/