A half century of social abuse.
They were once regarded as the backbone of America. In the 1970's, Richard Nixon called them the Great Slent Majority.
They created the norms of a society and established the family as central to that society. They knew their place and tended to mind their own business. We can still remember the days of a crowd of adults waiting at a bus stop, lunch bags in hand or lined up in the school yard waiting to pick up their kids. They were simple people and they were once America's great middle class.
They were the ones who built America and they were the ones who defended America. They were once optimistic about the future. They built a strong society and for a long time the traditional system of authority held.
What happened to them in the past 50 years?
The elitists gave away their livelihood to nations that advanced through cheap labor. Big Pharma preyed upon them. The American left made them the foil to advance an agenda. It is they who's values and goals are hostile to our nation's inherited cultures and the old majority. Thus, those in the functioning society who are successful, content and happy are tormented and targeted for they are indicted as either the oppressors or oppressor groups. Hence the self described oppressed have become the real oppressors and wield substantial power throughout our society and our culture despite being a fraction of the American population.
I say this cannot go on much longer. The problem has long been ignored, but now the left has taken it to a new level, in which no American can walk away from it. One way or the other we will have to remove this cancer on our civilization.
When the American Revolution looked lost, Thomas Paine wrote the American Crisis (No 1) which opened with:
"These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: It is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."
It was a call to action and that time has come again.
Tags
Who is online
446 visitors
First we must organize
Oh dear, channeling William C. Hammond are you?
How about you cite where this 'Tyranny' that needs to be 'conquered' is coming from Vic?
After 4+ years of rallies, y'all need to organize?
Let's start right here:
No Vic, it is not tyranny if law enforcement Investigates threats made to elected officials even those lowly as school board members.
How do you expect to be taken seriously if you promote every wild conspiracy theory out there? The Department of Justice is not out to investigate parents. You have to pose a real threat to even get their attention. What should the FBI do about the nutcases threatening our public officials over imaginary nonproblems?
So it's YOUR posit that addressing threats and intimidation against school board members is Tyranny?
Is requesting assistance from the FBI in other crimes also Tyranny Vic? I mean they are called in to help LEO's from all over the country after all.
Such as when a man's daughter was raped and it was kept quiet by the school board. The same school board that was so determined to implement their transgender rest room plan. The same school board that tranfered the rapist in secrecy to another school to do it again.
The father only learned of the rape when he was at a school board meeting. He was tackled and arrested and the radical prosecutor is vowing to put him in jail.
And the investigators are: The same DOJ that was so heavily politicized by Barack Obama and are now getting involved because the radical scholl board requested intervention.
Are you really going to try and defend that?
It's MY posit that we are living under a leftist dictatorship.
Is requesting assistance from the FBI in other crimes also Tyranny Vic?
It absolutely is when the request is frivoulous and the FBI is corrupt and lacks jurisdiction. That is what the school board association should have been told.
No, that actually has nothing to do with law enforcement investigating credible threats made to school board members. That whole story about that alleged rape is implausible anyway. In any case, it does not translate into America devolving into tyranny. Get real...
That has everything to do with it.
Just because a few assholes went to college and got indoctrinated and somehow got to the school board doesn't mean that parents are going to be thrown in jail.
It's coming...Can't you feel it?
It's coming...Can't you feel it?
No Vic, America is not a leftist dictatorship and that is not an excuse to threaten the safety of elected officials, their homes or families...
[deleted]
Had nothing to do with his daughter being raped.
[removed]
What else is new?
Absolutely nothing.
That demonstrates a total disconnect from reality.
Are all leftist dictatorships subject to being voted out of office?
Ehhheemm../ Can you say William Barr?
No that's not your posit Vic, that's your proclamation.
As members here know, you have no intention of supporting your calm and I doubt that you could if you tried.
Why do you think it's frivolous Vic?
As I said, the FBI is called in to assist LEOs all over the country and they have over 450 field offices in cities and small towns.
Why would the DOJ share your fallacious blather with them Vic?
Yes....yes he is.
Vic, when you fabricate a fantasy scenario to bolster your unfounded posit, you lose.
I'm only waiting for one thing today.
A truthful argument?
You have 2 guesses left.
Alleged rape? It’s been proven that it happened.
A JimmyJohns delivery?
That's 2 down.
Where have you been? Haven't heard from you in a long time. There aren't many who kept their Newsvine screen names.
[removed]
[removed]
Might I suggest:
Great for holding loose screws
And it is capable of holding a lot of them...
I agree. Great find.
Another "blame the left for everything" article? They're a dime a dozen.
Yes, the problems caused by the left are a dime a dozen.
How droll
Imagine that, I thought that with you comment.
and totally lame
Yep.
Who wants to explain to whining conservatives they there is no right not to be criticized for their speech, or for them to hold social power?
Even if it's explained, I doubt it would sink in. You'll just hear more complaints and whining about being "censored" or persecuted or some such nonsense.
The oligarchic Republicans like middle class Americans to "know their place". Don't dare strive to better yourself. Don't dare to get an education. Don't dare join a union. Don't dare to vote for your own self-interests. The oligarchic Republican 1% are in charge here and don't forget it!
The whole article reads as one big whine-fest by someone who cannot accept or deal with the fact that times and society changes.
The Cuban people had the same problem in 1959.
We're not Cuba Vic. Nice fail!
Thanks for pointing that out specifically. Vic obviously wrote this "piece" and he does like when people "know their place".
[deleted]
I think we know.
The Republican Party is a multiracial coalition of middle and working class Americans. It is the democrats who are the oligarchical secular progressive bi coastal elitists.
Ozzie and Harriet were not killed. Old age got them.
Unless you are an old ass racist this is a good thing.
Blacks in back and gays in the closet was not great.
That's the good fight and everything can be justified via fighting "racism!"
I think this speaks for itself
excerpt from the book Anti-Intellectualism In American Life by Richard Hofstadter, written in 1964
...One can hear in the anguished cries of the 1920’s a clear awareness that the older American type was passé, and the accusation that it was the intelligentsia who were trying to kill it. In 1926 Hiram W. Evans, the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote a moving essay on the Klan’s purposes, in which he portrayed the major issue of the time as a struggle between “the great mass of Americans of the old pioneer stock” and the “intellectually mongrelized Liberals.’”
All the moral and religious values of the “Nordic Americans,” he complained, were being undermined by the ethnic groups that had invaded the country, and were being openly laughed at by the liberal intellectuals.
I know this speaks for itself
Except from the all but forgotten article written by Felicity Baringer penned "the Mainstreaming of Marxism in US colleges and universities" written 3 decades ago:
‘Marx’s Ideological Heirs’
On October 25, 1989, a mere two months after Poland’s pivotal election, the New York Times published an article, headlined “ The Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges ,” describing a strange and seemingly paradoxical phenomenon. Even as the world’s great experiment in Marxism was collapsing for all to see, Marxist ideas were taking root and becoming mainstream in the halls of American universities.
“As Karl Marx’s ideological heirs in Communist nations struggle to transform his political legacy, his intellectual heirs on American campuses have virtually completed their own transformation from brash, beleaguered outsiders to assimilated academic insiders,” wrote Felicity Barringer.
There were notable differences, however. The stark, unmistakable contrast between the grinding poverty of the Communist nations and the prosperity of Western economies had obliterated socialism’s claim to economic superiority.
As a result, orthodox Marxism, with its emphasis on economics, was no longer in vogue. Traditional Marxism was “retreating” and had become “unfashionable,” the Times reported.
”There are a lot of people who don’t want to call themselves Marxist,” Eugene D. Genovese, an eminent Marxist academic, told the Times . (Genovese, who died in 2012, later abandoned socialism and embraced traditional conservatism after rediscovering Catholicism.)
Marxism wasn’t truly retreating, however. It was simply adapting to survive.
Watching the upheaval in Poland and other Eastern bloc nations had convinced even Marxists that capitalism would not “give way to socialism” anytime soon. But this would cause an evolution of Marxist ideas, not an abandonment of them.
”Marx has become relativized,” Loren Graham, a historian at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Times .
Graham was just one of a dozen of the scholars the Times spoke to, a mix of economists, legal scholars, historians, sociologists, and literary critics. Most of them seemed to reach the same conclusion as Graham.
Marxism was not dying, it was mutating.
”Marxism and feminism, Marxism and deconstruction, Marxism and race – this is where the exciting debates are,” Jonathan M. Wiener, a professor of history at the University of California at Irvine, told the paper.
Marxism was still thriving, Barringer concluded, but not in the social sciences, “where there is a possibility of practical application,” but in abstract fields such as literary criticism.
A Strategic Shift
Marxism was not defeated. The Marxists had just staked out new turf.
And it was a highly strategic move. “Practical application” of Marxism had proven disastrous. Communism had been tried as a governing philosophy and had failed catastrophically, leading to mass starvation, impoverishment, persecution, and murder. But, in the ivory tower of the American university system, professors could inculcate Marxist ideas in the minds of their students without risk of being refuted by reality.
Yet, it wasn’t happening in university economics departments, because Marxism’s credentials in that discipline were too tarnished by its “practical” track record. Instead, Marxism was thriving in English departments and other more abstract disciplines.
In these studies, economics was downplayed, and other key aspects of the Marxist worldview came to the fore. The Marxist class war doctrine was still emphasized. But instead of capital versus labor, it was the patriarchy versus women, the racially privileged versus the marginalized, etc. Students were taught to see every social relation through the lens of oppression and conflict.
After absorbing Marxist ideas (even when those ideas weren’t called “Marxist”), generations of university graduates carried those ideas into other important American institutions: the arts, media, government, public schools, even eventually into human resources departments and corporate boardrooms. (This is known as “the long march through the institutions,” as coined by the early twentieth-century Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci.)
Indeed, it was recently revealed that federal agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars on programs training employees to acknowledge their “white privilege.” These training programs are also found in countless schools and corporations, and people who have questioned the appropriateness of these programs have found themselves summarily fired .
A huge part of today’s culture is a consequence of this movement. Widespread “wokeness,” all-pervasive identity politics, victimism, cancel culture, rioters self-righteously destroying people’s livelihoods and menacing passersby: all largely stem from Marxist presumptions (especially Marxism’s distorted fixations on oppression and conflict) that have been incubating in the universities, especially since the late 80s.
As it turned out, what was happening in American universities in 1989 was just as pivotal as what was happening in European parliaments.
Especially in an election year, it can be easy to fixate on the political fray. But the lesson of 1989 is that today’s culture and ideas are tomorrow’s politics and policies.
That is why the fate of freedom rests on education.
To advance the cause of freedom for today and tomorrow, please support the Foundation for Economic Education.
Source: The New York Times Reported ‘the Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges’ 30 Years Ago. Today, We See the Results – Foundation for Economic Education
Doesnt it bother you that the ideology you operate under, the MAGA ideology, echoes the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan from a hundred years ago?
If you would, please ignore China...not that it is any more an example of true communism, but it is a largely state managed economy
Then they should have stayed in school....how is that the fault of the "mongrelized liberals"?
The idea that liberals and intellectuals betray "Americanism" is a pretty old one isnt it?
The chapter in the Hofstatder book where the KKK quote about liberals appears is titled "Fear Of Modernism" .
The political right always wants to go back to some perfect time (for them). I was listening recently to a podcast with James Carville. He said MAGA's want to go back to the 1950's, and life was perfect then, for white males.
The idea that liberalism has no ethics or morals that MAGAs use today also echo the same recruitment tactics of the Taliban.
The truly sad part about all this is that no one in America has lost any "freedoms" , unless you call the freedom to call people the n-word and 'f-ggot' and to brag about grabbing strangers 'pu--ies, and the freedom to keep minorities out of the bars where you hang out, and the freedom to spread a pandemic if you feel like it, ------------- are those the "freedoms" the right wants to start a civil war over?
Some in America have an insatiable vicarious desire for 'heroes'.
I believe we know who the seeder's villains are. You probably have a minute or two to alter your comment.
In Marx's lexicon of the oppressors & oppressed, I have turned it on it's head, haven't I?
[removed]
Oh you certainly have, watch out for when Canada's 1000 or so cottage Marxists join up with America's 3-4000 or so Disneyland Marxists, y'all be Red in no time ... oh wait, you, already are.
From Your Article:
Richard Nixon. Now there is someone who I hold in high regard./s
Nixon was a crook and a liar and as good at creating fantasy ideas that we could all hang our hats on, no matter how disparate the "we' actually were, as good ol' 45. Con men are like that: Good at telling us a story that we can all see ourselves in as the (select appropriate role here). Whatever the role you play, you are still the Mark in the con man's eyes.
Ahhhhh, the nostalgia of a better time when all the birds were not really drones and small children did not eat their parents, where it was always summer and the neighbors let you skinny dip in their pool. Oh, wait, that isn't true either. It is an idealized fantasy creation. People are mostly good, when left to their own devices, but there is ugly and bad in all of us, and when we get together, if there are no rules then the mob rules. Just who (which) the "mob" is depends on just who we are in the, " ...norms of a society."
Yeah, sure. They built America? I don't suppose they had any help either, like from the richer folk who may have taken a liking to them, or the poorer folk who did their laundry or shoveled coal/shit/dirt so that they didn't have to worry about getting their white collars stained.
Sounds like that was capitalism to me.
I grow weary of the incessant drone of the oppressing oppressed. It is all really such unabashed bull shit, like the four year old who will not stop tormenting you to give them another piece of candy or they will throw a fit.... yet again.
So true.
That’s not true, john. watch a black stand up comedian and you’ll hear “nigga” and “faggot” all throughout his or her act. Oh, and “bitches” too.
i think you’re too focused on one moment in time and i just read we’re not supposed to do that.
You know that using a word doesn't necessary mean you are CALLING someone that word right?
Tell that to the people of Chicago or those who live along the southern border. Tell them that the government is fighting racism and that they are to blame.
Oh wait: They've already been told, haven't they?
Don't think so, Vic. The half century of abuse began with Supply Side Economics and culminated with it's bastard baby Citizens United.
Yeah Vic, freedom is tough and getting tougher with having to fend off wannabe American Orban and Putin boot polishers.
We knew that when Biden destroyed America's energy independence.
When was America ever energy independent? Certainly not within the last 50 years at least.
1950.
Towards the end of the Obama years consumption approached equality with production.
Further efficiencies since then have continued a decrease in oil imports since the high in 2006
which are still staggering numbers.
Obama paved the way to start LNG plants in Houston which started exporting Liquid Natural Gas in 2016.
Several more plants came on line during the Trump years improving our export numbers exponentially.
Electric vehicles will put further pressure on decreasing demand for refined oil products like gas and motor oil.
The Trump declared "independence" was a sham.
We still imported roughly 10,000 barrels a day about half of it from Canada, 10% from the ME.
Under Biden the oil from the ME has dropped to 6.6% for the first 6 months of 2021.
Even while denigrating renewable energy and declaring it worthless, Trump ignored that
11.5% of our "independence" was from solar and wind, largely in Texas.
.
.
But Biden is destroying it. /S
Echoes of Fox news, laura Ingraham and the Boston Herald's sky is falling Biden bashing.
How did Biden destroy our energy independence?
Apparently by simply being a Democrat and elected President. At least that's how some seem to think.
Gee Vic, if that is all you got it is past time to "Cash out and never come back."-----A line by Bogart in the movie, "Casablanca."
You really don't know? I'll bet everyone knows.
So let me state it so you can try and debate it:
He killed off both the keystone pipeline and this drilling in Anwar.
Biden's I nterior Department suspended several oil and gas leases in the arctic.
He temporarily stopped granting permits for oil and gas operations on federal lands, which will reduce U.S. oil production and was immediately challenged with a lawsuit.
There were at least 10 other orders and directives issued aimed at repealing directives issued by Donald Trump. For the oil and gas industry, Biden’s orders specifically mention methane emission regulations to establish comprehensive standards of performance and emission guidelines from existing oil and gas operations. Additionally, the order requires Texas to submit State Implementation Plan for Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by January 2022.
.
"With dwindling supplies, many forecasts rising petroleum prices and U.S. households could spend a cumulative $19 billion more on energy by 2030, the API study stated.
Biden’s executive orders will reduce U.S. oil supplies that reached historic levels of 13 million barrels per day just one year ago.
The increase in production allowed the U.S. to become a net exporter of oil and natural gas. It was labeled by some as an “energy renaissance” and others called it “energy independence.”
Why don't you stand up for green energy if you believe in it. Biden did!
What does that have to do with my comment? And how do you know where I stand with green energy? Got anything better than a Strawman argument?
Neither of which were affecting present production, in fact the keystone pipeline would only
have INCREASED IMPORTS from Canada.
Again, doesn't affect present production.
Oh my, but when Trump did it to Obama policies were you counting those too?
Looks like Biden is returning to common sense without affecting production.
Also understanding potential tribal and environmental impacts of such a project. In addition, this might spur the development and sale of green energy sources as an alternative or supplement to current productions, which will only reduce our dependence on foreign sources.
Another article on line signaled bad news for coal producers.
Chinese solar electric production is at the cusp of providing 50% of their electricity
with 75% of all residences and small businesses having some sort of solar generation.
Coal imports are expected to decrease or plummet dramatically in the next few years.
They will still need to make or import coke for steel production.
As they too transition to electric vehicles, their oil imports will also decline.
We do not exist in a vacuum.
It's obvious that you don't have a clue, so let's go through it.
You do realize that the Keystone Pipeline brings in CANADIAN oil, right? how is that being energy independent it's a Canadian co with oil coming from Canada. The remaining pipeline coming from Canada was expanded to handle more than the Keystone could handle when completed.
I'm sure Canada will be more than a bit confused to now know that they are the 51st state.
Anwar: It was open for leases yet the oil industry was very slow in getting the leases. There would be experimental drilling to see if there actually was oil there and in what quantities and the cost. NO OIL HAS BEEN DRILLED IN ANWAR AND WE HAVE NOT USED ONE DROP OF OIL FROM ANWAR so how can that help us be energy independent if we have never received a drop of oil from Anwar?
Yes, in Anwar. That been discussed .
BILLINGS, Mont. — Approvals for companies to drill for oil and gas on U.S. public lands are on pace this year to reach their highest level since George W. Bush was president, underscoring President Joe Biden's reluctance to more forcefully curb petroleum production in the face of industry and Republican resistance.
The Interior Department approved about 2,500 permits to drill on public and tribal lands in the first six months of the year, according to an Associated Press analysis of government data. That includes more than 2,100 drilling approvals since Biden took office January 20.
New Mexico and Wyoming had the largest number of approvals. Montana, Colorado and Utah had hundreds each.
Ok, Please list these directives from Trump and requiring drillers to be in compliance is a good thing for most.
API is a fricking lobbing group for the oil industry.
Review the number of oil well pumping pre-pandemic and currently...Biden has nothing to do with that, it's the oil companies.
Vic, the Keystone pipeline would have transported CANADIAN oil, therefore it would NOT have moved the US toward energy INDEPENDENCE.
The ANWAR leases are suspended though I hope they ARE dead. The best estimate for the TOTAL amount of oil at ANWAR is LESS that what the US uses in ONE YEAR.
Oh and BTFW, one year of oil doesn't move the US toward energy INDEPENDENCE either...
No matter how many times that is debunked it is ignored.
Oh dear!
Biden’s energy policies help Russia, his tax policies help China.
Lobbing group? Like a slow pitch softball team?
I guess the idea is always to shoot the messenger, whenever confronted with the unalterable truth.
Not to be found here.
Right, because the oi lobbying group API wouldn't 'alter' facts, would they Vic?
It's telling that you couldn't come up with a better source to bolster your failed posit.
If they did, they'd be easy to disprove. You haven't done that.
Kavika took care of that Vic.
Indeed he did, he provided the truth.
Vic, you couldn't or didn't post the unalterable truth at all. Most of what you posted was BS as usual. You should actually try researching and posting accurate information.
It's really difficult to take someone seriously that still doesn't know that Canadian oil isn't making us energy independent. I would suspect that a 3rd grader knows that Canada isn't the 51st state.
Carry on or perhaps Jim can explain the difference between Canada and the US.
I doubled down on coal companies, oil and natural gas futures since Biden became President. With Biden restricting natural gas development, coal power plants that would have been replaced by NG will live longer and if winter is cold, a lot of coal will be providing heat and electricity that could have been cleaner burning gas.
You mean reliable resources.
Did you catch Carlson's expose on the vulnerabilities of the ugly windmills?
Another oxymoron?
SMH
When did Joe Biden do that, and how did he do that when the energy is privately owned?
Did he prove that they cause cancer, as Donald Trump claimed?
No but I'd love for you to explain why you think that windmills are ugly.
Here is what our local energy source looks like Vic:
Now THAT is ugly.
In comparison to most other energy sources, windmills are beautiful.
Just wait until winter comes to the northern part of the country. Those heating bills will really crucify homeowners.
What would Joe say to that?
His idiot card would probably say tell them to get solar heat!
Which is why Ted Kennedy killed the deal to put a winmill farm in Cape Cod Bay or why Andrew Cuomo stuck New York's windmills in red districts.
Btw the way they are unreliable in the winter. They failed in Texas and CA.
That's 2 knocks....they are unreliable and they are an eyesore!
They failed in Texas because they did not winterize them...They operate in ND and MN and do an auto shutdown when the temperature reaches 20 below zero.
More facts for you, Vic.
Here they are:
http://www.nov79.com/wdm.html#:~:text=Large%2C%20commercial%20windmills%20cannot%20be%20efficient%20due%20to,reduces%20efficiency%2C%20when%20there%20are%20so%20few%20blades.
Want another:
How about
Gone with the Wind: Inefficiency and Hazardous Nature of Wind Energy Impedes Renewable Crusade - American Thinker
I never said anything about efficient or inefficient I stated that Texas didn't winterize them and that they run to 20 below zero in MN and ND...The rest of the strawman/BS that you posted didn't have anything to do with what I posted but that all you have all the time.
Are you sure that Bill Koch's $1.5 million donation to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound wasn't what tipped the scale?
Or maybe it was Mitt Romney's opposition...
I didn't know that Andrew Cuomo built windmills. Interesting...
You know what else failed in Texas Vic? Natural gas distribution. It wasn't properly winterized, just like the windmills. Cold weather countries all over the world rely on windmills Vic. Just stop.
Secondly, windmills didn't fail in California Vic.
Both of which miss the mark.
How about this:
No, frozen wind turbines aren’t the main culprit for Texas’ power outages
Lost wind power was expected to be a fraction of winter generation. All sources — from natural gas, to nuclear, to coal, to solar — have struggled to generate power during the storm that has left millions of Texans in the dark.
Do us all a favor, stay the fuck out of TX
and stop commenting on Texas issues based on banned junk journalism from banned sources.
We AVERAGE 20% wind generation, most of which did NOT FAIL during the recent storm.
Fact check: The causes for Texas’ blackout go well beyond wind turbines | Reuters
25,000 megawatts of natural gas production was lost due to un winterized equipment,
while only 17,000 megawatts of wind generation was lost because of auto shutdowns of unwinterized
(no upgrades) wind turbine equipment.
What does Abbot do? Asshole wants incentives for fossil fuel distribution
and penalties for renewables that don't " perform. ".
Does MA need a slightly used asshole for Governor?
I can recommend Abbott.
Natural gas is responsible for 40% of TX electric generation. Coal & nukes make up 40%
Almost all of it froze because there is no enforcement for not winterizing. Nothing.in Ercot has no authority,
Gas failed spectacularly when it simply froze in the pipes.
Coal & nukes shut down automatically when cooling systems began to freeze as designed.
So let's blame renewables ( wind 17.8% and solar 1.2%. )
With almost no MSN coverage, the Texass PUC was finally ordered Thursday to enforce their new authority
to enforce previous winterization "recommendations".
[deleted]
Like we were energy independent with whatshisname
I hate to break the news to ya, but we were!
Not for many decades.
Trump propaganda repeated by Laura Ingraham again.
Fake news.
That's false Vic.
Only in your dreams, Vic.
That's an interesting slogan.
We know the truth, not to be found here.
From ANYONE either side I am sure you mean
Indeed.
That's not what I mean.
Those 'elitists' were free market conservatives obsessed with breaking down barriers to trade, which included destroying unions. They were Reagan Revolution Republicans.
The middle class has historically been more left than right, especially back in the heyday of labor unions. Organized labor built the middle class, and organized labor is a left thing. The right will pander to the middle class, and especially to the working poor for votes, but in the end they always favor capital over labor, and their policies prove it.
Taken what to a new level, specifically?
Sounds like you're just itching for violence, so much so that you keep blaming the left for ills of the right in an attempt to manufacture enough rage to justify it. If anything is a cancer that needs to be removed, it's sick, twisted, evil shit like that.
The (near) half-century of abuse was perpetrated by the post-Reagan Republican Party.
Supply Side explained. SSE concentrates then moves the wealth up. That is all it does. That is what it was bred to do and thus far, it is still working and working perfectly.
Well done.
The trick is to find out how it happened. We know about Carter and globalization, but the past 13 years has added a lot to the mix.
Read John's comment at 9
Try reading Post 5.1
And don't forget - we had a deal.
I trust you would hold up your end.
What deal was that? If it was I didn't post in your seeds and you didn't post in mine...well you broke that deal a couple of weeks ago when you posted in my group
[deleted]
Yes, that was it.
well you broke that deal a couple of weeks ago when you posted in my group
What was my comment?
If you want to end the deal that's fine as long as civility prevails.
I know you would be civil and would hold up your end of any alleged deal. Obviously others won't/can't/don't.
You expect me to go back two weeks and find that comment? You made one comment and suddenly realized you were in an unfriendly neighborhood and ran with your tail between your legs.
[removed]
I'd like to recommend a book
As long as we are recommending books:
We should begin with "The End of Prosperity"
Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore and Peter J. Tanous give Ronald Reagan full credit for laying the foundation for decades of U.S. prosperity. They see today's government programs as a return to the worst of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. The authors find it strange that the U.S. is adopting a more European model just as many European countries are moving more toward Reaganomics. They suggest a different path to good fortune: Get government out of the way of individual, entrepreneurial opportunity. If this reasoning persuades you, pay particular attention to their chapter describing how California, once the most prosperous U.S. state, became an economic basket case - a decline that the authors blame on the expansion of government spending, regulations and taxes. Laffer's advocates, including those who also favor a flat tax, see this book as an instant classic; his opponents have already dismissed it. getAbstract suggests it to those seeking a conservative take on current economic policy.
Supply Side stuff huh? Trickle Down, onto your forehead and down your legs. Panties not required.
The 20 year boom that even Bill Clinton benefited from. Have a good night.
That's delusional Vic.
Reagan promised to end the recession by cutting government spending. Instead he RAISED government spending by 2.5% every year of his term. Reagan oversaw a 142% INCREASE in the deficit. Clinton oversaw a 1% DECREASE.
I can't believe that anyone would dare argue about how Reagan saved the economy.
Here goes: It wasn't until 1983 that Reagan got his tax cut. Later that year the US economy expanded by 3.5% and in 1984 by a whopping 6.8%, after inflation. That was the single higest growth rate in 50 years at that point. Regan proved how less taxes can provide more revenues. At that point Reagan was entitled to fulfill his promise to rebuild the military and if today's democrats could do that they would have an argument for spending.
As I recall Reagan said "I knew it was working the day they stopped calling it Reaganomics."
Clinton handed off a budget surplus to Bush which he promptly undid. Trump's 2020 budget deficit was about four time Obama's last year's. There are two ways to stimulate an economy. Cut taxes or increase spending.
The gop understands this and goes all Super Keynesian when they have power then claim we can't afford healthcare or infrastructure as soon a Democrats get close to doing the things which will help our economy longterm.
"Economics is just math" - Bill Clinton
Clinton didn't even understand why there was a surplus. It had to be explained to him that the unexpected additional revenues were coming in via a still expanding economy courtesy of the Reagan policies. Clinton also had the benefits of the Tech boom.
Reagan did not save the economy.
I'm never surprised by the idiocy I see here at this point. There's a certain clique of progressives who will deny water is wet.
Or some love the days of high unemployment and inflation. "Bring back those 15% mortgages" cry the progressives.
The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office and was booming when he was sworn in. But reality isn't part of the myth progressives peddle.
They want to re-write history. Especially when it comes to Ronald Reagan
Yes that was a big part of it.
And he is not the God or Hero that he is made out to be by the alleged conservatives.
Could we say somewhat less than a God, but a bit more than a man?
No comparison to a god in any way shape or form.
Whatever the fuck 'a bit more than a man' is supposed to mean??????????????????????
You claimed that Reagan caused a '20 year boom' Vic.
ONE year of GDP growth failed to show Reagan's policies caused more growth than prior or future Presidents.
Carter's GDP average is only .24% lower than Reagan's.
Clinton's was 4% HIGHER.
No one stopped calling it Reagonomics Vic.
Reagan's economic policies were a failure for everyone but the wealthy.
"Reagan's economic policies were a failure for everyone but the wealthy."
Just like whatshisnames economic 'policies'
The GDP when Clinton took office was 3.5, which YOU claim was 'booming'.
The GDP when Clinton left office was 4.1, which YOU claim was 'entering a recession'.
Since the above illustrates your idea of reality, why would progressives want to peddle that myth?
You surprise me every day with the whoppers you extract from your nether regions Vic.
No Vic, unlike you and yours, I'm merely citing statistical facts.
Sean's comment is false Vic.
Last quarter of 1992 growth was 4.8%
The country went into recession in March 2001...
Yet again, you are wrong. Must be tiresome.
Lol. You stooping to making things up doesn't prove anything.
Do you and yours never tire of posting false equivalencies Sean.
A QUARTER is not the average for the YEAR Sean. Just stop!
Did you READ your link Sean? It states:
You know that Clinton left office in Jan. 2001 right Sean?
I just love when a member posts links that refute their own comments.
I proved that your comment is false Sean. Deal with it.
of posting false equivalencies Sean.
[deleted]
UARTER is not the average for the YEAR Sean. Just stop!
No shit. [deleted] I never claimed it was the "average of the year." Who the fuck invented that standard? Oh, that's right, you did becasue you can't deal with the actual data detailing the state of the economy at the actual times at issue.
You just made that up to try and distract from being a made a fool because you got caught lying again.
The economy was booming when George H.W. Bush left office and I used the data from the quarter when he left office to show it. You, per your usual dishonest m.o.. decided to change the time frame and use outdated data . So sad and so transparent! Who do you imagine is dumb enough to fall for such half assed deception?
know that Clinton left office in Jan. 2001 right Sean?
No shit. That's the point. Read what I wrote. "The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office" . The 4th Q of 2000 growth was only 1% as the economy slid towards the recession it officially entered six weeks after Bush was sworn in. Yet again you can't argue honestly.
just love when a member posts links that refute their own comments
[deleted]
proved that your comment is false Sean. Deal with it.
Yet again, you literally just make shit up, ignore reality, data, logic and the English language and claim you "prove" things. It's sad.
Again you post a false comment.
Now you don't know what false means. [deleted]
Reagan leads us from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation. In 1985 Reagan said it was nothing to be concerned about...Seems that was a load of shit according to today's republicans.
Reagan raised tax a couple of times after his first tax cut.
Are you serious or do you think everyone is stupid? Are you really saying that a 20 year boom means the economy would have to grow by almost 7% per quarter?
Here Dulay, do some reading:
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Golden Age: After 25 years of record-setting economic performance around the world, set off by President Reagan's free-market policies, the world has fallen into a recession. Is this the inevitable end of an era?
Read More: Economy | Budget & Tax Policy
Let's go back to 1982, in many ways the bleakest year since the Depression. The economy had emerged severely damaged by the stagflation of the 1970s. Americans' confidence, both in government and in the economy, had reached a low ebb in 1980. Many felt our best years lay behind us.
On the nations' campuses and even in some of its boardrooms, people were talking about capitalism as a failed system.
Some advocated a "third way" between socialism and capitalism, as in Europe, which would include heavy doses of government intervention in markets to bring them back to life. Still others took up the call in E.F. Schumacher's best-seller, "Small Is Beautiful," to downsize expectations. Live frugally, they said. Inhabit small houses. Drive small cars. Don't use oil. Rein in your ambitions.
One man didn't agree with this: President Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980 amid a wave of voter disgust at his predecessor's failures.
It was Reagan who brought America's capitalist economy roaring back to life, ending energy price controls, slashing income tax rates by 25% and dramatically reducing tax rates on capital gains.
Americans had been told for years — as they're now being told again — to expect diminished standards of living. Then they watched as the Reagan years set in place one of the most durable and remarkable booms in incomes and wealth in history.
Yet the media and academia rarely credited Reagan for his accomplishments — especially on the economy, where "Reaganomics" became a term of opprobrium among the intelligentsia.
But it's a fact. As the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research once declared, we lived in the "longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century" from 1982 to 1999 — one big boom, the NBER said, set off by Reagan.
Reagan's magic was simple. He wanted to lower interest rates, slash inflation, cut unemployment and boost economic growth. These things, at the time, seemed impossible. But he did it.
The so-called misery index — that is, unemployment plus inflation — hit 21% as Reagan was elected in 1980. By the time his terms were over, it had plunged to around 9%.
Interest rates likewise plunged — contrary to the predictions of many pundits, who boldly predicted that the budget deficits which emerged in the 1980s would send rates spiraling upward. From a stratospheric 21% in 1980, the prime rate fell to 7% by decade's end.
During the 1970s, many Americans for the first time saw incomes shrink. But from 1981 to 1989, median real household income rose by $4,000. The poorest Americans, who saw their incomes fall 5% in the 1970s, watched their incomes rise 6% in the 1980s.
After the staunchly free-market Reagan, things got a bit rocky.
President George H.W. Bush's four years included some mistakes and questionable moves — a record rise in regulations, for one, and the infamous breaking of his "no new taxes" pledge that, after 1991's mild recession, handed the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.
President Clinton won largely because he promised change. He had also promised a middle-class tax cut, among other things.
But his popularity plunged when, instead of cutting taxes, he raised them by a record amount. That tax hike contributed to one of the slowest economic recoveries from a recession since WWII.
The young Arkansan president looked like a one-termer.
But things changed. Slashing defense spending after the collapse of communism (another Reagan victory), Clinton and the new GOP Congress in 1994 started to shrink the deficit. Clinton sounded Reaganesque declaring: "The era of big government is over."
Meanwhile, after raising interest rates in 1994, Fed chief Alan Greenspan began cutting them as inflation and the deficit fell. The economy and the stock market soared. Budget surpluses emerged.
The Reagan era's star companies begat the Internet boom; they helped save Clinton's presidency. Two stand out: In 1993, Intel unveiled its Pentium chip. In 1995, Microsoft released Windows 95.
By 1996, the economy was rocking and so was the stock market. Employing his famous policy of "triangulation," Clinton wisely signed welfare reform into law, bringing millions of people off the dole and into the productive work force, many for the first time.
A year later, and with much less fanfare, Clinton signed into law a tax bill produced by the Republican Congress to cut capital gains tax rates. The result was the record boom of 1997 to 2000, the result of which was an unprecedented expansion of wealth.
Indeed, this 25-year Reagan boom was the most profoundly democratic era of capitalism ever. In 1980, just 16% of all workers owned stock. By 2000, that had expanded to 52%. Stock ownership moved from Wall Street to Main Street.
Even so, President George W. Bush inherited a mess in 2000. The Nasdaq was at the tail end of a record plunge — which began in 1999 after the Fed aggressively raised rates to quell inflation and end "irrational exuberance." As Bush entered office, the economy was already in recession. Job growth was nil. The 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 cast a pall over the nation's spirit and the economy.
Still, Bush managed to push through two major tax cuts. The second one, in 2003, helped set off a five-year growth spurt that went all but uncovered by the nation's media.
The rest of us lived through it!
Of course that is a lie.
No one stopped calling it Reagonomics Vic.
The biasaed, lying media stopped calling it Reaganomics. You forgot?
Of course he and most other leftists forgot. They stopped calling it Reaganomics because it would give credit to the good economy we had during the Reagan years.
We all know most leftists are not allowed to give credit to a republican. They get reprimanded for it. Called Uncle Tom, etc.
Yes.
Not everyone.
No.
How about you address the stats I posted instead of asking me to argue your fantasies.
Opinion pieces by unnamed authors hold little sway Vic.
So did I.
Nope.
If they are biased and lying WHY do you care what they called it Vic?
You made it up.
You prove over and over again that you have no clue about people on the left.
And Trump proved Reagan right with his tax cut and the government receiving more in revenues the most recent FY than were projected assuming no tax cuts.
Trump's 2020 deficit was the biggest in history!
Going After The Economy!
Tom Stiglich Oct 19, 2021 Cartoons
The DOW was at 26,501 November 2nd 2020.
Nope, Trump signed it and so Trump owns it...
Well, in that case, then those Trump's tax cuts were actually Nancy Pelosi's tax cuts. Right?
Less taxes means more revenues. Democrats just don't get it or they don't really care. I'm not sure which it is.
Either way the American people are ready to boot them out and they know it.
Or anything else.
Ya! Happens all the time! With certain members!
Oh please DO post a link that proves that ridiculous claim.
Because, EVERY report released by the Treasury states that Reagan's 1981 tax cut COST BILLIONS in revenue. In fact, the Treasury analysis shows a average of $111+ BILLION reduction in revenue over the first 4 years.
Oh and BTFW, even Reagan recognized that it was unsustainable and RAISED taxes in '83, '84, '86 and '87, and George H.W. [NOT NEW TAXES] Bush raised taxes again in '90, effectively trying to scratch back much of Reagan's tax cuts.
Democrats DO get 'it' Vic. 'It' just isn't the 'it' you get. Unlike your 'it', our 'it' is based on DATA and the US Treasury's DATA doesn't lie. Reagan's tax cuts have cost BILLIONS in revenue to the US Treasury. PERIOD, full stop.
[removed]
Vic set the standard Sean, he cited Reagan's 6.8% GDP in 1984. THAT is the average for the YEAR. DO try to follow the thread in the future.
BTFW Sean, the yearly GDP is data detailing the state of the economy at the actual time at issue. The GDP of ONE quarter is NOT more accurate.
YOUR linked source states that the recession did NOT begin until MARCH.
Then WHY did YOUR source insist that the recession STARTED in MARCH Sean?
The 4th quarter GDP for 2000 was 4.1%.
Vic set the standard Sean, he cited Reagan's 6.8% GDP in 198
[deleted]
. The GDP of ONE quarter is NOT more accurate.
Of course it is when you are talking about the state of the economy at a specific point in time. [deleted]
Guess what? The economy changes over time,. and a year is a long time, making data from a year ago not very relevant to today. [deleted]
OUR linked source states that the recession did NOT begin until MARCH.
What imaginary strawman are you attacking now? DO try to follow the thread in the future. . I specifically wrote that the recession began in March 2001. Your big "gotcha" is repeating what I already wrote? sad.
n WHY did YOUR source insist that the recession STARTED in MARCH Sean?
Because it did. Which is why I said it did. [deleted]
[deleted]
[Deleted]
Pointing out this false claim is apparently a COC violation.
Here's a link from the New York Times, which probably will now be found to be a banned source.
You stated TWICE:
So unless your posit is that Clinton left office in MARCH of 2001, which would be a ridiculous claim, you're WRONG.
Well THAT clears is up Sean. /s
The link I posted with that data isn't behind a paywall Sean.
You didn't post a link with that data. Did you not read your own link, or do you not understand it?
unless your posit is that Clinton left office in MARCH of 200
Of couse it's not. Which is why I never claimed it.
As I said, The country was also entering a recession when Clinton left office" That's indisputably true. The economy stalled in the second half of 2000 and entered recession in March 2001. Pay attention. I didn't claim it was "in recession" I said it was entering a recession, which it officially did about six weeks after Clinton left office. How hard is that for you to understand?
Well THAT clears is up Sean.
Finally. I only had to repeat numerous times.
Neither is the link Sean posted.
And Trump was President until 20 Jan 2021 and his vaccines became public knowledge after that date.
Great post. All of it is right on and was well said. I agree 100%.
[Deleted]
I can’t read it because of their paywall. Can you please cut and paste the most offensive portions to our liberal friends for me?
It is? I owe an apology.
I apologize Dulay, as before I didn't have the issue with the paywall.
Or if you would prefer a link that you can open...
Gross Domestic Product Fourth Quarter 2001 "preliminary" estimate | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
... tricky dick should have died a national disgrace as a prisoner in club fed.
I agree. the unamerican remnants of white supremacy, evangelical dominionism, and co-opted trumpster fascism must finally be permanently eradicated from american society. it's time to cut the lines of all the 19th century anchors our ship of state has been dragging for the last 50 years and move forward into the future, and leave the past behind.
As should have Reagan.
Keep us updated on the fight against "white supremacy." We are all waiting for the results.
[deleted]
It's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE
No surprise, the typical projection, deflection, and denial.
OMG - pearl clutchers unite!!!!!
You do realize they say that in EVERY generation. How many armageddons have we survived? This piece is bordering on the ridiculous & is fear-mongering at it's best.
10.3.1 Not worth a penny. You must have to pay for it.