WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE U.S.A.???
More Socialism or Renewed Capitalism???
Remember, Socialism only works as long as there is an abundances of other peoples money, and we, The U.S. are broke!!! Don D.
#1.)Picture of Saul Alinsky
#2.)Pictures of Karl Marx
#3.)Picture of Vladimir Lenin
#4.)Pictures of Adolf Hitler
#5.)Pictures of Stalin
#6.)Picture of Mao Zedong
#7.)Picture of Woodrow Wilson
#8.)Picture of Franklin D. Roosevelt
#9.)Picture Jimmy Carter
#10.)Pictures of Barack H. Obama
Socialist All
#1) Saul Alinsky - Chicago Socialist
#2) Karl Marx - English/German Socialist
#3) Vladimir Lenin - German/Russia
#4.) Adolf Hitler - German Socialist
#5.) Joseph Stalin - Russian Socialist
#6.) Mao Zedong - Chines Socialist
#7.) Woodrow Wilson - American Progressive/Socialist
#8.) Franklin D. Roosevelt - American Socialist
#9.) Jimmy Carter - American Socialist
#10.) Barack H. Obama - American (Kenya?) Muslim/C*******t
~~~
The Democrats' Demagogue
Paul Jacob / Sep 06, 2015 / Townhall.com
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clintons main opponent on the Democratic side of Campaign 2016, is a demagogue.
My Democratic friends balk at this. How dare I use that word! They contend, in counter-attack, that the opprobrious moniker better applies to Donald Trump, the headliner on the Republican side.
But, no matter how different these men may be, rich-man Trump or career-politician Sanders, their differences dont mean that only one of them can be a demagogue.
Both can be, and are, demagogues . . . though of different stripes.
How so?
A demagogue, my dictionary says, is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower socioeconomic classes in order to gain power.
For Democrats and for most libertarians the charge sticks to Trump because of his relentless anti-immigrant stance, his harping on the crimes of i*****l i*******ts coupled with his economic protectionism and fear-mongering regarding China, and his simple-minded personality cult, with so little emphasis on policy and principle, and his huge emphasis on him being a better negotiator and strong man than any of his opponents, left or right.
A Democrat particularly a progressive one (and sometimes it seems like all Democrats, these days, are progressives of one sort or other) sees the boasting, chest-beating aspects of his style as repulsive and low-brow, and the emphasis on the personal habits and threat potential of immigrants and foreigners as not only fear-mongering, but as frank appeals to h**e. And maybe (dare we bring it up?) r****m!
But since Trump is himself a plutocrat with experience on the business side of the Big Business/Big Government scheme (call it crony capitalism, for lack of a better common term), his appeal to the lowest socioeconomic class is not quite there. His appeal is mainly to middle-income groups, and to the average working person and taxpayer.
The charge of demagogue makes even better sense against Sen. Sanders. For here is a man who is not a plutocrat, who earnestly fights the plutocracy. He has made wealth and income ine******y his main issue, and relentlessly attacks higher-income Americans as a source of Americas current woes whose wealth Sanders targets as the cure (provided it goes through his hands, first).
But like Trump, his direct appeal to the very lowest socioeconomic class appear weak. His stance, so far, has inspired mostly college-educated middle-class folks and the boho community of ex-hippies, hipsters, and would-be cool people (the kind Greg Gutfeld writes about).
But he uses the code-phrase everyday working Americans as a wedge, and the poor as an innocent shield, to advance what are, in fact, elitist solutions. Giving more power to government, and robbing the private sector of the means and opportunity to expand, means that the lowest socioeconomic classes would remain stuck in their ruts forever.
Indeed, though Bernie Sanders is a constant shill for an expansive Scandinavian-style welfare state, and though this is not really socialism in anything like a pure form, dont ask a Democrat about this.
Particularly, dont ask the head of the Democratic Party, who apparently cannot explain the difference between the welfare state in America, and the Democrats support for it, and the slightly bigger and more intrusive ones in Denmark and Sweden, much less where the word socialism fits in all this. Though progressives laugh at libertarians and conservatives who have called Obama a socialist, they themselves are increasingly fine with the word, and Bernie has used it for the bulk of his career.
But though these folks, Bernie Sanders included, think that socialism is an appeal to the working person, their proletarian cred has never been very high. Like most self-professed socialists the Senator is only faux-prole, workingman manqué. Intellectuals, collegians and government workers have long dominated the socialist movement.
Though Sanders rightly attacks the plutocracy, he never attacks the government half of the plutocrats power structure. Never admits that unions are plutocratic in nature, too.
Instead, he appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudice and ignorance of those who, against all evidence, see more government only as a solution and never as a problem.
Bernie Sanders is a demagogue because he attacks the rich and proposes solutions that pretend to favor the lowest socioeconomic classes. And, like most socialists, he plays, demagogically, on his constituencies
Emotions: Socialism has always been a philosophy of hatred of business, free markets, the rich, and private property;
Fears: The rich buy our e******ns. Now, specifically the Kochs (never Soros and comrades) do the buying, with Sanderss solution being to effectively repeal the First Amendment (just one of many ominous totalitarian touches in his political vision);
Prejudices: Its always the rich and the one percent as if all are alike, as if there is no diversity in how fortunes are made;
Ignorance: Ask a socialist to define consumer surplus, marginal productivity, or explain the idea of mutual benefit through trade they prove belligerently resistant to economic wisdom.
Par for the socialist course. And, never forget, socialism is the word Sanders himself chose.
For its historic demagogic appeal.
~~~
No, The System Is Not Broken
Steve Chapman / Sep 06, 2015 / Townhall.com
If there is anything p**********l candidates agree on this year, it's that our government and politics are not functioning to fulfill the desires of the American people. Donald Trump proclaims that "our system is broken."
The phrase could be used by almost anyone in the race. "Government in Washington is dysfunctional," says Mike Huckabee. Bernie Sanders believes "the American political system has been totally corrupted." Joe Biden sounded like a candidate the other day when he lamented the "dysfunction in Washington."
The premise is that most Americans want one thing and our leaders in Washington keep giving them something entirely different. Ted Cruz insists his ideas are what most Americans favor. "It's only in Washington, D.C., that those are considered radical or extreme," he says. Sanders says the people "have serious doubts about how much their v**e actually matters."
If only the politicians would listen to the people and respond to their wishes. If only democracy operated so public preferences become public policy. If only our interests weren't continually shortchanged by operational misfires.
Actually, the American government does a good job responding to the desires of the e*****rate. Sanders, Cruz and many citizens assume they don't get their way because the system fails.
But sometimes they don't get their way because most people don't agree with them. Sometimes they don't get their way because it collides with constitutional principles. Sometimes they get their way, but what they want is contradictory and -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- dysfunctional.
Cruz insists the great majority of Americans share the values he upholds: "live within your means, don't bankrupt our kids and grand kids, follow the Constitution." To which I can only say: Ha. Ha. Ha.
American politicians don't refuse to live within our means because they are cong*****l spendthrifts. They do it because the citizens want more things from their government than they are willing to pay for.
A 2013 poll by the Pew Research Center asked about various federal outlays and found that nearly every one of them is very popular. "For 18 of 19 programs tested, majorities want either to increase spending or maintain it at current levels," reported Pew. The sole exception was foreign aid -- which accounts for about 1 percent of the federal budget.
Living within our means suggests we should pay taxes in an amount sufficient to cover all these outlays -- something we have not done in a long time. This year, the federal government will spend about $425 billion more than it takes in.
We could close the deficit by cutting spending, which most people don't want to do. Or we could close it by raising taxes, which they also oppose. In a Gallup poll this year, only 4 percent of Americans favored an increase in federal income taxes. The public would rather run large deficits than do what is required to prevent them.
Sanders favors higher tax rates on the rich. When asked whether 90 percent would be too high, his answer was "no." The problem is that this is a minority view. The top rate today is 39.6 percent. A 2012 poll commissioned by the political website The Hill asked people what they thought the top rate should be. It reported that "75 percent said the right level for top earners was 30 percent or below." The rich get off easy? Blame the non-rich.
The people, granted, don't always get the last word. Cruz thinks something is wrong when the Supreme Court can make same-sex marriage legal everywhere. Sanders thinks something is wrong when the Supreme Court can empower the Koch brothers to squander millions on e******ns.
But deciding how to interpret the Constitution has been the responsibility of the Supreme Court for more than 200 years. If the justices rule against your side, that doesn't mean the system is broken or that democracy has been violated. The Constitution was meant to put some issues beyond the reach of majorities.
The justices, keep in mind, are appointed by elected presidents and confirmed by elected senators. Even at the Supreme Court, the will of the people plays a major role over time.
The candidates would like v**ers to think that anytime things don't go as they want, it's because someone or something failed the v**ers. That's usually not the case.
In a constitutional democracy, everyone sometimes is fated to lose. Being a sore loser? That's optional.
~~~
Confession of a Sore Loser
Over the past two months, I've gotten a lot of mail from supporters of George W. Bush. Here are a few of their crafty retorts:
"He lost. Get over it!"
"You lost, get over it."
"A sore loser by any other name is still a sore loser."
"Sore Losers (or is that SoreLoserman?). I can't wait to watch the inauguration."
"Sore Loserman! Haw Haw!"
"Don't cry too hard, losers, it may drowned out our hysterical laughter. WE Won, nanny, nanny, boo, boo."
In short, we who complain about the Bush presidency are Sore Losers. This is supposed to be something bad. Although none of these folks followed up their comments with any actual arguments, one might imagine that their line of thought goes something like this:
* E******ns have winners and losers.
* The losing side should be quiet and accept their lot.
* A loser who complains is a Sore Loser.
* Being a Sore Loser is Poor Form.
~~~
McCain pollster revisits '08 campaign
From NBC's Mark Murray - Thursday Dec 18, 2008
As Republican pollster Bill McInturff sees it, two differences would have made last month's p**********l contest much closer -- had the financial collapse occurred on Dec. 15 instead of Sept. 15, and had the Republican National Committee been able to raise more than $200 million in the final two months, without any restrictions on how the McCain campaign could use it.
But, of course, neither happened.
McInturff, who was McCain's pollster and who has since returned to become the Republican half of the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, says the McCain camp was in the process of unveiling its "Chicago" ad on Sept. 15. That advertisement, which linked Obama with Tony Rezko and even Rod Blagojevich (!!!), was the beginning of an effort to raise this question with v**ers about Obama: What else do we not know about him? "It was not the k**ler ad, but it was the right opening," McInturff said. Yet the economic collapse that began on Sept. 15 forced both campaigns instead to spend the next month reacting to that crisis.
Open The Click on Chicago ad!
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/12/18/4426079-mccain-pollster-revisits-08-campaign?lite