Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Earon's column >>

EARON

Home Page
Writer, teacher, policy analyst and bodyworker
Articles Posted: 48  Links Seeded: 21
Member Since: 7/2007  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

"Starve the Beast" - How the Radical Right Is Taking Over America

Sun Feb 5, 2012 1:59 PM EST
politics, republicans, democrats, tea-party, conservative, strategy, conspiracy, radical, american-dream, norquist, starve-the-beast
By Earon
Advertise | AdChoices

"Starve the Beast" is coming to fruition as the Conservative Republican/Tea Party/John Birch Society strategy for America, the master plan of right wing extremists.  This strategy has been used effectively, beginning with Reagan, to gradually destroy public confidence in government and increase the wealth and power of the corporatocracy.  Of course, the lack of trust in government fuels domestic terrorism, violent crime, white collar crime and civil unrest.  It encourages anarchy, but what better way to justify increasing the power of the police state in which the wealthy are unchallenged and in complete control over our lives - with unions and increasingly ineffective government officials powerless to protect us.  Bless the Occupy Movement for standing up to these powerful interests.  The "starve the beast" strategy has multiple thrusts and vast implications:

  • 1.  Reduce tax revenues to but the support of the wealthy and to increase the deficit.
  • 2.  Wage continuing wars requiring massive military expenditures - to increase the deficit and enhance multinational corporate efforts to control the global economy and grow their markets.
  • 3.  Offshore America's manufacturing sector in order to break Unions and drive down wages for American workers.  Make American workers feel fortunate to have a minimum wage job without benefits - which increases anger government.
  • 4.  Corrupt federal regulatory agencies by appointing political leadership that does not agree with the mission of these agencies.  Corrupt lobbyists and incompetent administrators subvert the missions of these agencies by rewarding those who don't do their jobs, reversing scientific decisions, refusing to make important policy decisions, feeding bureaucratic ineptitude and demoralizing the professionals within the agencies, resulting in their being ineffective - causing the public to mistrust government.
  • 5.  Creating huge deficits, increasing public mistrust of government and calls for further cuts to the Federal budget, which makes the agencies even less efficient.
  • 6.  Allowing media consolidation and corporate ownership of all media so that the public receives its news and analysis as a steady drumbeat of fear and lack of confidence in government - all filtered through the vested interests of the corporate media, owned by other large American corporations.
  • 7.  Increase the corruption of Congress by corporate special interests.  Make them all millionaires beholden to corporations for funding their election campaigns.  This, again, has a major effect of causing the public to mistrust, if not hate, government.

Conservatives and Tea Party zealots have been starving the Federal budget in order to increase the deficit and force deeper and deeper cuts to social programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Education, Environmental Protection, etc.  One way to do this is with obviously irresponsible tax cuts to reward fat-cat political donors and corporations.  This reduces tax revenues just as government agencies are needed to regulate the excesses of unregulated corporations.   Tax cuts, always focusing on the most wealthy individuals, is an efficient way to promote this plan because it ratchets up the deficit and endangers our economy.  This, they believe, will force Democrats to whittle away at important government programs.  Republicans generally do not want to directly propose cutting social programs because that could lose them elections.  Paul Ryan's budget is a notable exception.  We'll see what happens to the supporters of Ryan's budget and Grover Norquist's pledge in the upcoming 2012 elections.

The power of this insidious, manipulative strategy of increasing the deficit through tax cuts to the wealthy and constant wars, is that the resulting budget squeezes force even Democrats to agree to cut government programs that harm the country. The other prong of this strategy was to destroy government agencies from the inside, appointing anti-government zealots to key positions in Federal agencies, the Federal Courts, including corporate lobbyists and hucksters to discredit and demoralize each of the important agencies and departments of the Federal Government.

In this way, government becomes less efficient at protecting the public's health and managing its safety net programs for the elderly, disabled, veterans and the poor.  Government becomes less effective in regulating Wall Street, prosecuting white collar criminals, controlling monopolies, maintaining a healthy and safe environment and workplace, maintaining a healthy food supple and safe medicines.  These consequences then cause the public to be angry at, and lose faith in, the government.  Therefore, they blame government, and Democrats, and push for even more austerity because they no longer trust the (corporate controlled) government.

Conservatives want, as Grover Norquist so graphically stated about the government, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."  Conservatives increasingly hate government, but claim to be patriotic Americans.  They act as if the wealthy elites are superior beings and that regular people should be completely dependent upon the wealthy for charity and kindness - and not on government programs and unions that guarantee them health care, civil rights, reproductive freedom, food to eat and basic human rights.  As for Libertarians, it just seem like they have followed along because it's fun to hang around rich people - and perhaps because they want to see poor people get screwed.  Either way, they have done an amazing job cooling out the marks for the Conservatives, brewing more and more anger at government and keeping Democrats off balance.  They have served their corporate masters exceedingly well.

I don't care whether this is a vast conspiracy of the wealthiest individuals inside or outside America.  I don't care whether this is a provable conspiracy at all.  That just doesn't matter.  A systems analysis has made these patterns apparent over the past decade - and they need to be changed.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Earon's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Free Thinkers, Happy with Corporate America?, Mad For Rachel Maddow, Outraged Americans For Justice, Psych, Soc, Philos, Writers
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (81)
CommisarCain

Conservatives increasingly hate government, but claim to be patriotic Americans.

You do not have to hate your country to distrust the government.

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:11 PM EST
Porter Rockwell

But it sure helps!

  • 9 votes
#1.1 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:27 PM EST
Earon

I agree, commisar, but there is a point where it seems to feed upon itself, which is why I wrote the above essay.

  • 8 votes
#1.2 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:30 PM EST
CommisarCain

I agree, commisar, but there is a point where it seems to feed upon itself, which is why I wrote the above essay.

The government has power and power corrupts. That justifies distrusting the government. The government is too powerful for us to let it do whatever it wants.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:37 PM EST
Never Stop Asking Questions

It amazes me that Right Libertarians, the Tea Party, and the Party of No, (all who hate Government), are fighting tooth and nail to lead the most powerful government on the planet.

Stunning.

  • 13 votes
#1.4 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:57 PM EST
Earon

CommisarCain, the anatomy of power does not begin with government. It begins with wealthy individuals lobbying and corrupting the process in order to control government so they can use its power to support their ideology or their profits. Under a "free market systems," we citizens get the best government that money can buy - because the "free market" puts government up for sale to the highest bidder. I think that we need to take the corporate money out of the government and enact strict regulations regarding lobbying and influence peddling.

  • 9 votes
#1.5 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:29 PM EST
CommisarCain

Under a "free market systems," we citizens get the best government that money can buy - because the "free market" puts government up for sale to the highest bidder.

The free market economy is not responsible for the misdeeds of the government.

  • 1 vote
#1.6 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:38 PM EST
Randy McMurphy

The free market economy is not responsible for the misdeeds of the government.

The "Free Market" isn't accountable to anything or anybody. thats because it is intangible, a legal fictitious construct, made and gave sanction , by government.The free market can only be held accountable by the arm of the consenting people.The government.

  • 7 votes
#1.7 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:02 PM EST
Randy McMurphy

To understand the Starve the Beast strategy, you have to understand the 2 santa theory, first posited by republican economist Jude Wanniski in the mid 70's Which was a strategy that deceived voters into thinking republicans were "fiscally conservative", where they attack democrats on spending, and once they get into office, to rip the roof off any fiscal controls, so republicans can use the extraordinary debt they incur as stimulus to pad their numbers, and to quite literally bankrupt the nation so they can then say "we're Broke" so they can eviscerate the social safety. So scream like hell when a democrat s in office about spending, then spend like hell so they could bankrupt the nation....crazy and illogical I know, but could you honestly say they are not living up to Wanniski's wildest dreams today?

Hear me...at the time Winniski published the idea and was selling it in republican circles,1976...the Fords average annual deficit was 37 billion a year...during the stagflation and oil embargoes of the 70's, in fact , the average annual debt from 1969-1981 was 35 billion dollars... More importantly we were borrowing within the growth of GDP, so as we were borrowing, our debt was still shrinking, overall -1.4% under Nixon/Ford, avg -0.17 annually, and -2.6% under Carter,0.65% annually

Enter Reagan, Trickle down, deficits pay for themselves me me me era, the average annual deficit(now,we have to add the accruing interest on the debt), Was 295 Billion for the next 12 years, and our debt grew faster than GDP so debt and interest exploded, Overall +19.4% under Reagan +2.4% annually ,Overall 11% under Bush ,2.7% annually

Clinton comes in , and we see a great reversal in this debt...his average annual deficit and debt was down to 175 billion a year, he produced surpluses in his last 3 budgets and the debt shrank as a % of GDP Overall -8.8% ,1.1% annually

The there is Bush#2. Man o man...anybody remember this gem?

My plan reduces the national debt,and fast- so fast ,in fact, that economists worry we are going to run out of debt to retire
---George bush radio address feb 24 2001

Or

"Reagan proved Deficits don't matter"
Prime minster Cheney

HaHa(ironic half assed laff) George you really got us on that one...His deficit spending and debt turned a 5.7 trillion deficit into a 11.9 trillion dollar debt by the time his last budget was finished, his annual debt was 762.5 billion a year, and the national debt started increasing again, overall +12.8% overall, +1.6% annually.

Now I may trade barbs with my conservative counterparts, but I wouldn't say they are stupid anymore than I would say I a genius, some of them, on some level have to know the intent of such a pattern s to run up wild skyhigh debt with the intent of saying we're broke so sorry seniors, bye bye goes medicare and Social Security, sorry poor folks bye bye medicaid and nutritional support

Doubt it? Consider this statement by Rick Santorum, the frothy conservative,

In 2003, Senator Rick Santorum
(R-Pa.) declared: "I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a
deficit hawk. I'll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to
say no"

He "had to spend the surpluses.Its easier to say no"

consider Randian Disciple Alan Greenspan in '78

Said Greenspan on that occasion, "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenues available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending
Greenspan 1978

Restraining the amount available, Alan? you didn't seem to have a problem enabling Reagan in his fallacy, nor Bush#2, did you alan

Suppose Iran figured out way to bog us down in soooo much debt when we didn't have to accrue it, so much so that it is a clear and present danger to the standing of the United States as an economic power? What would are reaction be? We would be at war with them, thats what...yet the domestic belligerents get a pass, why more people don't know about this strategy they seem to be using I don't know, but I bet more people know of this stupid Cloward Piven paper that the President in no way employs because of Fox and Glenn Beck

Conservative Reaganite economist writes extensively on failed conservative policies such as starve the beast and Deficits don't matter, and he rightly doesn't believe it will work, but it will ultimately lead to the higher taxes cons dread so much;

Perhaps a future fiscal crisis will provide political cover for massive cuts in en-
titlement programs that would be politically impossible except in such dire circum-
stances. However, many analysts now think as I do that the more likely result of such
a crisis will be massive tax increases that will move the tax/GDP ratio in the United
States closer to that in Europe.

The rationalization proved extremely important to the modern development and success of con-
servatism in the political sphere. In the words of journalist Jonathan Rauch, "For
modern conservatism and the country, the importance of Starve the Beast is impos-
sible to overstate"

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_01_01_bartlett.pdf

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/where-did-our-debt-come-from/66530/

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1701/jude-wanniski-taxes-and-two-santa-theory

  • 5 votes
#1.8 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 12:20 AM EST
Earon

Randy, thanks for all the great information! The background history is most useful.

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 12:51 AM EST
Reply
sistagirl

The American people are beginning to see what is happening and the promises made from their elected officials basically doing a total three sixty degree turn when they win and get in to office. That is why WI is doing their recall; every state should have this law as mandatory, imho. Did we not see the republicans congress that ran on jobs in 2010 turn around and legislate everything other than jobs? How many abortion bills have they passed now in the house? Where is the outrage from the republicans who voted for these people? Why are they not doing a teaparty shoutout that they were lied to? I read last year on this vine an article by a long time republican staffer who finally had enough, retired and he listed all what their strategy is. One is to make a certain electorate (democrats) so discouraged, distrusting and disgusted with government that they no longer even bother to vote, while they rev up the republicans to get out and vote. Are we not seeing that? I'm quite sure that the republican governors in co-hoots with the Karl Roves, ALEC and other conservative strategy type groups will come up with some issue to get the rightwingers to the polls. Yes, it is indeed a campaign to take over and we must remain vigilant like we just saw with the PlanParenthood debacle. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

  • 8 votes
Reply#2 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:15 PM EST
Porter Rockwell

Nice sentiment and I generally agree with it. But for future reference, "total three sixty degree turn" would be the same as no turn at all. That's what too many of them do now. I believe you meant, "one eighty degree turn".

  • 5 votes
#2.1 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:30 PM EST
sistagirl

Porter...thanks. One-eighty degree correction.

  • 6 votes
#2.2 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:48 PM EST
Reply
Porter Rockwell

Y'know ... What you wrote is so obviously true that I sometimes wonder how many people actually understand it and how many are simply deluded fools.

For example, I will give Newt the compliment of saying that I think he is smart enough to actually understand what he's doing. That makes him the kind of smelly evil that should disgust everyone. (But unfortunately doesn't.)

Bush, however, might not. It's pretty clear to me that he wasn't actually running the government, at least for the first six years. When James C. Moore and Wayne Slater wrote Bush's Brain about Karl Rove, they weren't kidding.

But, as you said, it doesn't really matter. The priority needs to be to help people like "Joe the Plumber" understand how they are being played as fools by the rich. I wish I had the secret for doing that.

  • 5 votes
Reply#3 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:27 PM EST
BLOGER-486140

Be more concern about they way the Right Wing as infiltrated the military.

  • 5 votes
Reply#4 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:32 PM EST
Mike in Ga-

Earon, I prefer to blame somebody or something else for this demise we find ourselves in. The R and D, come from the same mold and both are equally at fault for our predicament. here's a link i think you might enjoy reading that explains how this thing sets up and how it was planned. Part of that plan is to have and maintain a class society with different levels of wealth to maintain it. No matter what laws, or bills are introduced there will always be the haves and the have nots. It's up to the individual through hard work and perseverance, or not to choose one or the other, not the Government to assign it.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml#fourteen

    Reply#5 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:41 PM EST
    Earon

    Mike, you certainly have a thoughtful position, but I think it is too easy to blame "both sides" as if the true answer is always somewhere in the middle. I agree that there are many corrupt Democrats in Congress. However, the opportunities for corruption are coming from somewhere. They are coming from the idea that it is okay for corporations to spend more money on lobbying that on taxes. Of course, corruption spreads to enrich people in Congress of all parties because Corporations and Industrial interests want support to enhance their position in the marketplace. The most effective expenditures they can make, bringing the highest return on investment, is lobbying rather than business.

    I agree that there may always be classes in society, but not with the extreme disparity we now have. It is not inevitable and it needs to change.

    • 8 votes
    #5.1 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:36 PM EST
    Mike in Ga-

    Yes Corporations spend more on lobbying than on taxes. Why? Because the system allows it. That same system that has allowed it for years is now under review as a political tool. All of a sudden we realize it's not fair. What's taken so long to figure that out? Politics.

    • 1 vote
    #5.2 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 8:57 AM EST
    Earon

    Mike, I agree that corporate lobbyists and influence peddlers play the politics game very well. They created a culture of greed and corruption in Washington, D.C. That culture served to make fundraising easier for incumbents and especially Republican incumbents. But everyone seemed to be along for the ride and this is part of what the public anger at Congress is all about. Now that the cat is out of the bag (it was never really hidden), I hope we'll move forward and create better firewalls to keep money from influencing Congressional votes.

    • 2 votes
    #5.3 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 12:47 PM EST
    Mike in Ga-

    Couldn't agree with you more.

    • 2 votes
    #5.4 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 7:42 AM EST
    Reply
    greg81082-4115372

    Supply side Jesus has apparently signed up for the American right. The GOP is running on attacks and social issues instead of governing for ALL the people.

    Karl Rove will amp it up big before the general election.

    • 10 votes
    Reply#6 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 3:46 PM EST
    markpup

    Why are Democrats and the Left so bad at countering all this?

    The Federal government is the only corporate entity large and powerful enough to dictate to major multinational corporations. If it's weakened, that increases their power.

    I know this and a lot else that's mentioned in the article. Why oh why are Democrats so crummy at getting the word out?

    • 5 votes
    #7 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:14 PM EST
    Earon

    Good question, markpup! My personal take on this is that Democrats are not trying to rule the world. They are more like a bunch of people who get together to try and address things that are problems for people. On the other hand, most Republicans truly have a plan to make over the world in an image that better suits them. They have a plan, and the Democrats are just sort of trying to mind their own business and let the anal-retentive, obsessive-compulsives have a place where they can make their billions, but keeping it at something better than feudalism for the average person.

    The Federal government has always been under the control of Congress, which is increasingly controlled by special interest groups. Having the House of Representatives under Republican control gives them complete veto power over the nation's agenda. It is always difficult for "average joes" to control the message when up against an aggressive, meanspirited group of hugely well-funded zealots. Media consolidation, accomplished by Republicans for special interest groups, means that almost all of our news comes from corporate entities. The "talking point" about a "liberal media bias" has taken off in spite of the fact that almost all media now are corporate - a drastic change since the 1970's. Not only is there relatively little "liberal bias," but the preponderance is just dumbed-down entertainment in corporate media while the past decade has seen a massive increase in conservative talk radio and Republican talking point networks like FoxNews and, increasingly CNN. The role of media in our society has drastically shifted in the past 40 years from informing citizens to entertaining consumers.

    • 2 votes
    #7.1 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:48 PM EST
    sistagirl

    Markpup....I think the dems are too scared at the force they see from the republican side. The repubs are all in lockstep on their talking points and this shows confidence whether truth is told. I noticed only a certain few democrats that were more than happy to go before the camera and speak out during the HCR fight. Too many coward during the mid-terms and did not even run as democrats and ran away from the President and Pelosi. It was sad to watch during that time. I do hope finally they have grown spines especially since Obama has now realized that that bi-partisan goal did not work with the repubs.

    • 3 votes
    #7.2 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:50 PM EST
    markpup

    I'd say if the Democrats couldn't even get the Bush tax cuts rolled back for those making over 250K with majorities in both houses, I'm not getting a warm and fuzzy the Democrats have any idea how to sell their point of view to the voters. Especially the working class and small business owner Americans that should be their natural consituents.

    I really don't see any reason to support Democrats if all they do is whine about how mean spirited the Republicans are but they can't and won't stand up and fight for us.

    And I think it's about leadership - having a vision and a place we're bringing the country to instead of being driven by polls. In that respect, both parties perform abysmally.

    And I think if the Democrats got tough and stood up, a lot of that "obstructionism" would go away. I'd be "obstructionist" too if my opposition was that easy.

    • 3 votes
    #7.3 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:55 PM EST
    Covah

    Democrats are not trying to rule the world.

    Democrats fail to control the Republican enemy because they do not understand the viciousness of Republican attack. We need to see another FDR who said "I welcome their hatred". Obama cannot do that. Hillary could. Hillary 2016! She has an axe to grind with those Republicans who attacked and disgraced her when she was First Lady.

    • 8 votes
    #7.4 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:55 PM EST
    Earon

    Markpup, those are excellent comments. I agree. Democrats in Congress have been too often bought off by corporate interests because it makes re-elections so much easier to get big wads of money from corporate lobbyists, etc. I'm hoping that we are seeing a cycle of real Democrats and the retirement of some of the Blue Dog Reagan Democrats who are easily captured by money and other shiny things. Time for a return to basic Democratic values, so please, everybody, be sure to support Congressional candidates who represent you well!

    • 1 vote
    #7.5 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:03 PM EST
    markpup

    Covah - you might have something there. Rumors are though that she's planning to retire in 2012. Maybe she'll change her mind in 2016.

    I really wish she ran this time. Obama's not that bad on a scale of 1-10 I'd give him a 5 or 6. I'll vote for him again given the crop of GOP candidates most likely to win, but it would have been great to have a Democratic alternative.

    sistagirl - the Democrats need to stop whining and being scared and start standing up. It's way past time.

    • 3 votes
    #7.6 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:03 PM EST
    sistagirl

    markpup.....so are you going to believe the hype about the "leadership" that the repubs and conservatives have been spreading around since Obama took office? That is just another one of their paid talking points too. We all know that the dems and repubs are fundamentally different, but in the past they both have worked together for a common good. Now what we are seeing is a total battle of which side can win it all. But I still believe and see that the democrats are more compassionate in working for the good of the American people. The repubs by their own words and deeds seem to be all for what's good for business and they are stuck on the old ways of trickle down. I cannot believe that they still want more tax cuts for business when it is a proven fact that it has not created jobs. How many lies can they continue to tell the electorate before we take to the streets in total disgust and revolt???!!!!

    • 3 votes
    #7.7 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:06 PM EST
    kim me

    I see it this way: I have been married for almost 39 years. (To the same woman, or should I say lady.) We had a "shut up and listen" rule. When one had a complaint, the other had to shut up and listen. When they were done, they had to shut up and listen. It went back and forth till it was settled. Never had a real fight. We never got angry at each other. The Democrats are trying the same to be polite, but the Republicans wont shut up.

    • 9 votes
    #7.8 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:08 PM EST
    sistagirl

    Markpup...I agree with you that the dems do need to stand up. I call my senator quite often talking with her staff on how I'm seeing things the dems are doing and her too. I even called once my republican senator's office.

    • 3 votes
    #7.9 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:14 PM EST
    markpup

    sistagirl - Democrats have paid talking points too. My definition of leadership is someone who has a vision of where we should be 20, 30 and 50 years from now and brings us there. We know what the vision is, what the main points are, and how we're doing. I have to go back to Goldwater or Johnson to remember any real leadership like that. Since Nixon all we get is the "poll driven" presidency where what they believe in is whatever the polls think we like that day. That's not leadership. One of my problems with talking with someone under 40 is they've never really seen what leadership in the Federal branch looks like.

    Earon - I agree with you about the negative influence of corporate special interests on Democrats but that's always been a fact of life. Democrats used to have unions to help them but they are very weak now. Regardless I'm hoping the party learns to run candidates that know how to talk to people and treat them respectfully. Too often that's missing and I don't get a warm and fuzzy there were lessons learned especially after the "shellacking" in 2010.

    kim me - what happens if your significant other never shuts up? Your only real alternatives are to never shut up yourself or get a divorce. We can't really do the equivalent of the divorce in Congress my God wouldn't that be nice?? I'm surprised your arguments resolved so well the only way I could ever do it is to agree to what she wants and swear up and down I'm so happy we compromised (wait that's what the Democrats are doing isn't it?????)

    • 2 votes
    #7.10 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:17 PM EST
    sistagirl

    Kim me...I hear you. I could not believe what I heard this morning from Peggy Newman in a discussion panel on CNN's Siheed Frazar. She actually said that Obama's approval rating has not gone up despite the republican candidates negative ratings went up. That was a total lie as some polling showed just the opposite. When Frazar corrected her, she said nothing to argue her statement. The repubs will not shut up even if it is a total lie they are telling cause it's all about staying on (paid) talking point message. Frank Luntz is a rich man.

    • 3 votes
    #7.11 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:21 PM EST
    sistagirl

    Markpup....If the dems have a paid expert on talking points then his azz needs to be fired. I surely did not heard them and barely saw the dems even come before the cameras with them. I do believe this President has a vision for American and have heard him speak of it, but how can he get anything accomplished with this obstinate congress? The senate needs a super majority to get anything passed and the house is full of teapartiers running over their leader Boehner, while he refuses to allow the dems to help. We the electorate have to get rid of all the obstructionist, extremist and sale-outs out of congress, period. And the leaderships have to want to work together for the good of the people.

    • 3 votes
    #7.12 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:34 PM EST
    kim me

    markpup, we agreed to this before we got married. We always followed it. BTW, I was a supporter of feminism back then and still am. That is the secret. The magic word. Not feminism, but equality. I had to look up to my wife because she is 6' tall, but we are still equal. She controls her body and I control mine and we share them. What better life could you ask for?

    • 4 votes
    #7.13 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:42 PM EST
    markpup

    kim me - God bless you for that.

    I do have to re-ask the question even though again thank God it doesn't apply to you. What happens if one side doesn't shut up ever?

    • 2 votes
    #7.14 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:56 PM EST
    Earon

    markpup, we're in that situation now. And we'll see what happens. I am hopeful that the Democrats will go to the voters and regain a majority in the House. If one side is unable to shut up and listen, to engage in constructive dialogue, the electorate had better understand that and make sure they are in the minority - and will keep punishing them, election after election, until they shift their views more towards the center.

    • 2 votes
    #7.15 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 9:36 PM EST
    markpup

    Earon - it's up to the Democrats to make the point. It should have worked in 2010 but didn't.

    If I'm remembering correctly, even with majorities in both houses and the Presidency, even that wasn't enough. There was all that whining about the filibuster. If the Democrats can't provide enough guts and leadership to get past that hurdle, my expectations are pretty low.

    • 1 vote
    #7.16 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 9:42 PM EST
    sistagirl

    Earon....not only will this new batch of teaparty house members not shut up, but they won't even listen to their leader Boehner nor any experts that try to talk to them. Remember now, experts have that book-learning elitism quality that they don't go for. You must have that Joe six-pack Hockey mom learning, then you right.

    • 2 votes
    #7.17 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 9:45 PM EST
    kim me

    markpup, Hasn't happened yet. So why ask the question? It worked for us. Why ask the question? Are you looking for something that isn't there? We have something that is called love. We love each other. We work together to settle all arguments. Can the politicians say the same? At least the Democrats tried.

    • 3 votes
    #7.18 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 9:45 PM EST
    sistagirl

    kim me....for congress it use to be called compromise, but now the repubs can't even say the word.

    • 3 votes
    #7.19 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 9:54 PM EST
    Earon

    In 2010, Democrats were scared about the Tea Party, which had taken over the national debate, with the help of the corporate media. In 2012, the Occupy Movement has counterbalanced the T Party and has shifted the debate drastically. The T Party is now considered an aberration by the average American, including main street Republicans. I really don't know that the Democrats could have done anything in 2010. There were lots of very corrupt Democrats who had bought into the conservative line, so the Democrats did not have the votes to do much, even though they were supposedly the "majority" party.

    Sistagirl, good point! I've got a T Party Congressman in my area - Joe Walsh. He's the one who was a deadbeat dad and had his Congressional wages partially garnished to pay his child support. The guy's a complete loser with a big mouth to blame everyone but himself for all of his problems. I think the T Party is going down. Their support levels are around 14% at this time.

    There is a level at which politics is like competing lightning bolts near a large herd of cattle. We can rationalize all we want, but when sentient beings get spooked, they are vulnerable to irrational reactions, including stampedes, bigotry and T Party, I guess.

    • 1 vote
    #7.20 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:02 PM EST
    kim me

    Like I said, they wont shut up..

    • 2 votes
    #7.21 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:02 PM EST
    markpup

    Hi Earon - I'm fascinated by your stat that the Tea Party has 14% support. I'm in no way contesting that but if you have a link it would be cool to see it.

    I suspect most of the same corrupt Democrats you described are still there. And Democrats really do like their corporate contributions too.

    I think most of the "shellacking" came down to 2 things. First, the economy didn't take off like a rocket. It was of course an absurd expectation after the economic collapse in 2007 most of it was just to punish the party in power. If the Republicans had the majority in the House in 2010, I think the shellacking would have been against them.

    The second part is I think the Democrats did a poor job of explaining what they were doing and connecting with those who should have been their constituents and alienated a lot of people. And the results showed up in voting. I remember a press conference with Joe Sestak (who unfortunately lost his seat) making that point he's about the only Democrat I can really think of who tried to get a lessons learned out of this.

    Were the Democrats scared of the Tea Party? Most of the TPers are wack it should have been a great opportunity for Democrats to point that out and get more of their own elected and they missed it. It's more than aggravating to see instances of giant low hanging fruit just waiting to be taken and they just pass it by. Why should the Democrats ever be scared of them? I think the Republican establishment was rightly a lot more scared of them but as we can see, they were hugely successful at using the perks of office to co-opt them.

    • 1 vote
    #7.22 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:29 PM EST
    kim me

    Try this list.

    http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/congressional-support-for-health-care-for-america-now/

    • 2 votes
    #7.23 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 10:35 PM EST
    Earon

    Markpup, I couldn't find the 14% reference, sorry! I think I heard it from a political source, rather than as a published study. I did find a 20% favorability at Pew Research http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/29/more-now-disagree-with-tea-party-even-in-tea-party-districts/?src=prc-headline

    • 1 vote
    #7.24 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 11:44 PM EST
    Minan59

    Why are Democrats and the Left so bad at countering all this?

    It seems to me half of them are in corporatists just like the republicans. Even Obama is farther right than Eisenhower was back in the fifties.

    • 1 vote
    #7.25 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:16 PM EST
    markpup

    Minan59 - yes I do think part of the Democrat's problem is their own dependence on corporate contributions and the expectations from them of what they're getting for it. Democrats used to have unions but that's a very weak institution compared to days past.

    Eisenhower - at one point Truman a Democrat offered to help Eisenhower with getting nominated in his party until Eisenhower threw Marshall under the bus. Eisenhower grew up in Kansas which was more Republican so he was more comfortable with that. OMG back in the days when party didn't mean so much.

    Republicans were an extremely different and much preferable world back in the 50s than they are now as well. I'm pretty sure though that Obama wasn't to the right of that - Republicans traditionally supported small business, the upper middle class and the rich. Today they only support the rich and screw over everyone else. I'd say Obama has a sincere interest in helping the poor and working class he's not that effective at doing it but it's where his heart is.

    • 1 vote
    #7.26 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 3:15 PM EST
    Earon

    markpup: "Earon - it's up to the Democrats to make the point. It should have worked in 2010 but didn't."

    Jonathan Haidt makes that point quite effectively. He cites the Democrats for failing to address the American public in moral terms, leaving out half of the power to a political argument. This interview, with Bill Moyers, is a real lesson in how we all need to stop demonizing each other and find the common ground that is there. If we have been demonized, and respond simply by demonizing the other side, things will only get worse and worse. http://vimeo.com/36124840 [I seeded this discussion on Newsvine, and hope it draws some more good discussion!

    • 1 vote
    #7.27 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 11:26 AM EST
    markpup

    !! Earon this I agree with. I think Mr. Haidt got this right. Actually talk to people instead of down to them and have a conversation on what you're doing and why you're doing it instead of jumping up and down about obstructionism and the "party of No" and all the rest of it which really in the end registers to voters as whining. It also comes across as you suggest as demonizing the other side.

    And I would add the Democrats still haven't taking this lessons learned to heart.

    • 1 vote
    #7.28 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 4:29 PM EST
    Reply
    Covah

    I think this is a few year out of date. There is now a strong counter movement to this strategy which dates from Bush years. Republicans have disgraced themselves yet again and Democrats will take back the House, thus controlling the executive and legislative branches. It takes only one SC right-wing justice to retire in the next almost five years for it too to go Democratic.

    "1. Reduce tax revenues" Democrats will let Bush tax cuts expire, raising tax revenues.
    "2. Wage continuing wars" Democrats need to cut military spending. Let's see if they have the guts. Popular support for Ron Paul's attacks on military spending show this would be a popular move.
    "3. Offshore America's manufacturing sector" Democrats are America's Labor Party, let's see them boost labor for a change.
    "4. Corrupt federal regulatory agencies" a typical Republican strategy. Get rid of Republicans, it goes away.
    "5. Creating huge deficits" again a Republican strategy. Democrats do the opposite.
    "6. Allowing media consolidation and corporate ownership of all media" Fox News is a laughing stock.
    "7. Increase the corruption of Congress by corporate special interests." AGAIN specific to Republicans.

    Republicans hate America and are obsessed with its destruction. But only Republicans, and they cannot keep power because they are continually being thrown out of office when the public wises up to their lies. Of course Republicans will come up with a new package of lies to scam votes and regain office and go right back to their thieving, and be thrown out of office again.

    Since Democrats always fail to stand up to Republican lies, we simply muddle along.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#8 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:48 PM EST
    Earon

    Covah, you make some good points! Thanks for chiming in!

    • 3 votes
    #8.1 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 7:51 PM EST
    markpup

    Covah - after the "shellacking" in 2010, do you think the Democrats had any lessons learned and anything's changed? I appreciate your optimism I just don't get the warm and fuzzy on this I think the serious self-examination and points going forward Democrats sorely need just hasn't happened.

    Your last sentence - I couldn't agree more.

    • 2 votes
    #8.2 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 8:40 PM EST
    Covah

    In my state we threw out every Republican from statewide office. Every one. I do not understand the Republican sweep in 2010. Did Democrats think "we won" in 2008 and stay home? Did dumb ass voters really believe "Keep your socialist hands off my Social Security and Medicare"? Did they really believe Republican promises to deliver jobs then watch stupidly as Republicans went after union rights, Medicare, abortion, and public benefits? Are millions of Americans consumed with hatred for "liberals", their heads filled with lies from Fox News? Is it simply the counter swing of the historical pendulum that always happens? I just don't know.

    Democrats "got the message" that this was a life-or-death struggle with Republicans from the Great Depression to the Kennedy assassination. Then they got soft.

    Kennedy was a real-life war hero who faced the enemy and survived. He knew what a life-or-death struggle was. After he was punked with the Bay of Pigs fiasco he knew who the enemy was. He knew he had to face down the militarists in the Cuban missile crisis and he did. He would never have let the Vietnam War get out of hand like Johnson did. With the counterculture movement Republicans found the Democrats' Achilles heel. Now Republicans play the moral supremacist card for votes even when Republicans are thoroughly corrupt.

    • 1 vote
    #8.3 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 12:50 AM EST
    markpup

    Hi Covah - I'm still a Democrat from the old school. A big part of the point I'm making is Democrats got soft so on that we agree. And I'd also add way out of touch perhaps that's part and parcel of being soft.

    When you say you don't understand the 2010 sweep, how can you then turn around and say 2012 and beyond will be different? We need to try to understand what happened in 2010 and apply lessons learned first. Face shortcomings honestly.

    • 1 vote
    #8.4 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:46 AM EST
    Reply
    Gaileoin

    Earon, you've cooked up a right wing conspiracy theory here that rivals the Kennedy assasination 2nd gunman cover up and the Roswell UFO crash cover up. It is unfortunate that many people will read the article and blindly accept it and envision right wingers meeting in smoke filled rooms late at night plotting to take control of the government.

    If anyone reading the article were to put a little thought into it they would soon realize that the theory is far to complex to implement on a nationwide scale and that the conservatives have nothing to gain by interfering with the government in such a way as you describe.

    There is no nefarious plan to re-locate manufacturing overseas. It's true, many have relocated to try and find a way to compete in the world market situation as it currently exists. It was not a planned move by any politician to encourage relocation overseas.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#9 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 11:35 PM EST
    Earon

    Gaileoin, I think it is always fair to question statements that assert a plan in what may be coincidental happenings. Is it less ominous if there are trends in society that just happen to fall into a large pattern? The Heritage Foundation actually did have a large, well-developed plan to implement when Reagan entered the White House. Really, it was implemented in a very clear and precise way and the transition committee was known for quite efficient and swift purges of Federal agencies and Congressional committees - which was within their rights.

    So, I agree that "conspiracy" is too strong and loaded a term. However, the Tea Party took full advantage of their threats to put the US in default. It was plausible that many of them would have gone down that road, but they went far enough to cause the downgrade of our financial system. This is completely in line with the "starve the beast" philosophy, which has been stated in conservative circles, not just made up by progressives.

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

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

    • 1 vote
    #9.1 - Sun Feb 5, 2012 11:58 PM EST
    Reply
    Covah

    the theory is far to complex to implement on a nationwide scale and that the conservatives have nothing to gain by interfering with the government in such a way as you describe.

    Listen more carefully to Republicans. They use code and make themselves clear.

    Freedom=crime
    personal freedom=freedom to commit crimes
    personal responsibility=blame the victim
    small government=get the cops off your back
    Free trade=freedom to manipulate trade; monopoly power
    Capitalism=aristocracy
    No "death tax"=promote hereditary aristocracy
    entitlements=paid government benefits
    tax cuts=government handouts to the rich
    English as official language=anti-American Anglophilia
    collectivism=national unity
    statism=constitutional authority
    regulation=rule of law
    redistribution of wealth=taxation
    "energy security"=entrenched oil company profits
    national security=military waste, fraud and abuse
    waste, fraud, and abuse=any money not given to the rich
    Republican=Loyalist
    Democrat=Patriot
    our rights come from God=divine right of kings
    Christian nation=blasphemy and Satanism
    communist=anyone but a fascist
    "starve the beast"=enhance corporate power and weaken legal rights
    job creators=rich people who stole $15+ trillion in public funds

    • 3 votes
    Reply#10 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:03 AM EST
    CommisarCain

    small government=get the cops off your back

    If you are not committing crimes you should the cops should be off your back. The justice system is not for punishing those who follow the law.

    our rights come from God=divine right of kings

    JFK and the Founding Fathers said that our rights come from God. Our rights are something that we are entitled to, not something the state can take away on a whim.

    • 2 votes
    #10.1 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 7:37 PM EST
    Covah

    If you are not committing crimes you should the cops should be off your back.

    Republicans ARE committing crimes, that's why they want the cops off their backs.

    JFK and the Founding Fathers said that our rights come from God.

    That is absolutely absurd. Just try to prove it, you do not have a clue.

    • 2 votes
    #10.2 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 11:17 PM EST
    CommisarCain

    Republicans ARE committing crimes, that's why they want the cops off their backs.

    No, they are not committing crimes. You do not have to be a criminal to want checks on police powers.

    That is absolutely absurd. Just try to prove it, you do not have a clue.

    This is from the Declaration of Independence.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

    This is from JFK's inaugural address.

    the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

    JFK and the Founding Fathers did acknowledge that the rights of man are God given.

    • 1 vote
    #10.3 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 11:40 PM EST
    Earon

    CommissarCain, I don't want to argue with you because I do see some truth in what you write. It's a matter of different emphasis that divides us. I recommend this interview with Bill Moyers and Jonathan Haidt, who says that liberals are not understanding what conservatives are saying, and that is why our positions are skewed away from conservative appeals to freedom and the sacred. He shows how we are all blind to the other's truth, and that we are not nearly as far apart as we think. http://vimeo.com/36124840

    • 1 vote
    #10.4 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 11:33 AM EST
    Covah

    No, they are not committing crimes.

    Republicans are directly responsible for the theft of over $15 trillion, the greatest theft in the history of mankind. They are continuing to rob the treasury at this moment and promise straight out to continue robbing the treasury until the country goes bankrupt.

    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

    This means the exact opposite of what CommisarCain thinks it does. IN FACT the Declaration of Independence was opposed to the divine right of kings and was establishing a secular government. In order to oppose the divine right of kings which comes from the Bible, Jefferson had to appeal to a different God, "the laws of nature and of nature's God" NOT THE BIBLICAL GOD!

    Right-wingers like to reverse the cause/effect relationship in the founding documents, as if the revolutionaries were fighting against the government they were founding and supporting the government they were trying to overthrow. For example, Timothy McVeigh was wearing a teeshirt reading "The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of patriots" when he was arrested. McVeigh was using the words of Jefferson AGAINST the government Jefferson founded. You will find right-wingers use revolutionary era language AGAINST the current government which the revolutionaries founded. Gingrich plays this game all the time. Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" is another juicy example.

    "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is exactly opposite from aristocratic privilege in which life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are based on noble birth, not on equal birth. Republicans oppose this by supporting a hereditary aristocracy. They claim their "rights come form God" which is directly opposed to "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

    This is from JFK's inaugural address "the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

    Prove Kennedy did not have his head up his ass. Kennedy also claimed the Soviets had more missiles than we did, the infamous "missile gap" which was a lie. Did thousands of Soviet missiles suddenly appear when Kennedy said those magic words? No, they did not.

    • 4 votes
    #10.5 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 5:48 PM EST
    CommisarCain

    Republicans are directly responsible for the theft of over $15 trillion, the greatest theft in the history of mankind.

    Running a deficit is not theft.

    This means the exact opposite of what CommisarCain thinks it does.

    No, it does not. The statement that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" means just what I said it did. It means that our rights are not privileges the state can revoke. Our rights are owed to us by the state because our rights are God given. It is not within the state's authority to revoke them. JFK and the Founding Fathers both acknowledged this.

      #10.6 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 9:30 PM EST
      Covah

      Running a deficit is not theft.

      Where did the $15.3 trillion go and who is going to pay it back?

      our rights are God given

      For example, the Third Amendment in the "Bill of Rights":

      No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      That comes from God, huh?

      • 3 votes
      #10.7 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 12:59 AM EST
      CommisarCain

      Where did the $15.3 trillion go and who is going to pay it back?

      The money went to a lot of places such as defense spending, auto bailouts, and social welfare programs. The government does not appear to have a plan to pay it back. While that is bad policy, it is not theft.

      For example, the Third Amendment in the "Bill of Rights":

      No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

      That comes from God, huh?

      According to the Founding Fathers yes it does.

        #10.8 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 1:26 AM EST
        Pilotshark

        Where did the $15.3 trillion go and who is going to pay it back?

        The money went to a lot of places such as defense spending, auto bailouts, and social welfare programs.

        you forgot the big one TAX Breaks to the rich.

        • 3 votes
        #10.9 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 7:06 AM EST
        Mike in Ga-

        15 trillion is such a unbelievable amount of money the potential for embezzlement, and skimming off the top therefore is a very real consideration. That's why I feel the Fed has to continually print money. The cash is gone in someones pocket and replaced with worthless paper, fraudulent books,, 40 and 50 to 1 leveraging, and depreciation in our home values, and every other investment we have. They pull the dollars out of the system and replace it with some worthless so called, " Instrument" in place of the cash.

          #10.10 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 8:58 AM EST
          Earon

          Mike, that's why I agree with those who want to audit - and then reform - the Federal Reserve, which appears to have aided and abetted the big banks beyond anything authorized by Congress or the President.

            #10.11 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:09 AM EST
            Mike in Ga-

            I also agree with that. We'd all fall over with heart attacks if we were really told the amount of leveraging that takes place on a daily basis. Our financial stability, balances, and actual numbers are all an illusion, to fit Washington, Wall St, and the Feds talking points, and to give all of us some sort of false comfort in the way our country is running the financial side of things. It's all one big lie after another while they rob us blind..

            "If the American people ever allow banks to issue their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and [bank owned] corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

            Banks should not be allowed to create money out of thin air and demand interest for it. They end up controlling the money supply and they can at will cause inflation and deflation and thus confiscate property

            "The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury." ~ George Washington

              #10.12 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:23 AM EST
              Earon

              CommisarCain, I do appreciate your assertion that our rights come from God. I take that as a firm statement of their inalienability, on which I agree with you.

              The question is what "God" means. It is known that many of the founders were deists, who believed in a nominal "God" or supreme being - but rejected all sacred writings as being anything more than ideas from humans. So, they basically believed that God created earth and then split, leaving no instruction manual - just our ability to reason.

              I suspect that you believe that these God-given rights are endowed upon everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Even atheists. The "God-given" rights could be seen as "natural rights," also. I see nothing wrong with appealing to the idea of God to indicate that these rights are transcendent and, inalienable. I hope that atheists can accept the spirit in which you express the idea of God-given rights, because that is a strong tradition in American culture.

              However, where we might differ would be regarding the actual history of that tradition and whether these God-given rights can be taken away if someone is gay, lesbian, transgendered, bisexual, etc. Of course, we know that women, African-Americans, Native Americans and many others were not afforded these inalienable God-given rights for many, many years after the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were enacted. The idea of God-given rights raises the question of how a predominantly Christian country could have withheld these rights for so many people for so long. But that's a question for another discussion.

              • 2 votes
              #10.13 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:39 AM EST
              Covah

              The money went to a lot of places such as defense spending, auto bailouts, and social welfare programs. The government does not appear to have a plan to pay it back. While that is bad policy, it is not theft.

              Tell it to your credit card lender: "The money went to a lot of places such as restaurant spending, fancy clothes, and vacations. I do not appear to have a plan to pay it back. While that is bad policy, it is not theft". And they'll say, okay, that's fine. Sure they will.

              The Third Amendment in the "Bill of Rights" comes from God? "According to the Founding Fathers yes it does."

              What a hoot!

              • 2 votes
              #10.14 - Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:38 AM EST
              Reply
              Covah

              a right wing conspiracy theory here

              Check this out:

              "The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee") on these claims. In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible. No one was prosecuted." -wikipedia

              • 4 votes
              Reply#11 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:15 AM EST
              Covah

              I appreciate your optimism I just don't get the warm and fuzzy on this. I think the serious self-examination and points going forward Democrats sorely need just hasn't happened.

              More evidence of my warm and fuzzy optimism is the nation-wide outrage at Komen's decision to withdraw funding from Planned Parenthood. This outrage shows people are fed up with right-wing moral elitism and are not going to take it any more.

              This points to a Republican shellacking not seen since Goldwater.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#12 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:25 AM EST
              markpup

              I'm not so sure. This is a highly polarized issue where pro-lifers and the like from the right charged up. Reminds me in California of our Prop 8 which was our gay marriage initiative - voters rallied like crazy on both sides.

              It's a bit off topic but this specific issue makes me uneasy. I run a 10K race sponsored by the Susan B Komen foundation and every year we get to see a group portrait of women who successfully fought breast cancer. Seeing it live is a bit of a tear jerker. I'd hate to see someone self-righteous enough to stop donations for this great cause of providing free breast cancer screening because they're unhappy about reallocation of funds for planned parenthood. I hope the focus is on what good is getting done.

              I'm not Catholic but I donate pretty big to an organization that's Catholic based that helps runaway teens. Rescuing the teens is what is meaningful to me and it's up to me to be tolerant about other people's faith.

              • 1 vote
              #12.1 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:59 AM EST
              EaronDeleted
              Reply
              Dean Moriarty

              We got you under our thumb.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#13 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 4:10 AM EST
              Minan59

              I have faith that he veil of right wing fascism will be removed, and the country will see the destruction it has caused.

              • 3 votes
              #13.1 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:19 PM EST
              Reply
              Earon

              Markpup, I think that the planned parenthood issue was just the tip of the iceberg. Komen has done nothing to prevent the rising incidence of breast cancer - early detection is not prevention, as important as it is. The cancer rates are astounding and should be raising demonstrations rather than breast cancer walks. Something is wrong. We'll be getting some closer looks into what the Komen Foundation is all about. http://front.moveon.org/what-movie-starring-cancer-survivors-and-the-susan-g-komen-foundation-premiers-today/#.Ty_3vCCQyNw.facebook

                Reply#14 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 10:05 PM EST
                markpup

                Well I guess I'll have to wait for the movie.

                Regardless of it's Komen or not, for years women are strongly urged to get checkups and mammograms. It does seem to me early detection goes a long way toward prevention. Plus I never saw anyone criticize Komen that their donations for cancer prevention are a waste of money until they made this stand - I don't agree with the specific stand they're taking but I don't want to walk away from other great public benefits they provide.

                • 1 vote
                #14.1 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 10:12 PM EST
                CommisarCain

                Komen has done nothing to prevent the rising incidence of breast cancer - early detection is not prevention, as important as it is.

                Early detection allows women who would have died of cancer to survive it.

                • 3 votes
                #14.2 - Mon Feb 6, 2012 10:53 PM EST
                Earon

                That's an obvious truth about early detection, in most instances, but certainly in the case of breast cancer. However, ironically, early detection of prostate cancer has been shown to often degrade the quality of life without extending its quantity.

                The point about prevention vs. early treatment is to prevent the occurrence of cancer in the first place. That is primary prevention. Early treatment is not prevention of cancer, although it saves many lives. Prevention would be to acknowledge the vast sea of chemicals and other factors that are responsible for contracting cancer in the first place and/or damage to the body's natural defenses that might otherwise kill the random damaged cells before they become "cancer".

                The rates of cancer in the US are far higher than in the developing world, and than most of the developed world. China is catching up, as cancer is now the leading cause of death in China, after its decades of massive pollution. An objective view of our cancer rates would show them to be outrageously high. So, we certainly need great treatment and early detection, but if we don't deal with the causes of cancer, we will get more and more people to treat. It makes sense to spend more money and effort on prevention - so that fewer people get cancer in the first place.

                • 1 vote
                #14.3 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 11:42 AM EST
                Reply
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse |
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com