HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HughBeaumont » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

HughBeaumont

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 13, 2004, 03:12 PM
Number of posts: 21,054

Journal Archives

This Modern World: Generic Cartoon, To Be Reused Over and Over Again, Unfortunately.

http://tom-tomorrow.dailykos.com/

?1355584910



So, CNBC. You know, the "MISSION CRITICAL FISCAL CLIFF" Channel. What's the End Game?

Is this station, with all of it's Republican anchors and Republican guests paying disgusting hourly fealty to Wall Street and Trickle Down, seriously trying to imply that keeping the Bewsh Tax Cuts permanent and starving/squeezing/screwing/austeritizing the middle/working/poor Boomers, Busters, X-ers and Millennials is the most feasible solution in this over-contrived budget "crisis"??

All in the name of not harming their precious, hard working, benevolent and "better" wealthy? All in the name of not harming Beeg Beezness? All in the name of not harming their national treasure war machine?

We're 16 trillion in debt. This was in large part caused by the Borrow-and-Waste disaster of the Bewsh Administration. Those tax cuts are costing us billions each year. They're not even doing what they're hypothetically (or mythically, if you ask me and anyone else with a brain stem) supposed to be doing: providing incentive for the "Job Curators" to pull some hiring out of their asses. How much is our bloated war machine costing us? How much are these occupations of choice costing us? How much is corporate pork/welfare costing us? How much is ChinaMart costing us??

What did they think . . . that you'd never raise taxes ever again, no matter what? No matter that corporations and businesses aren't hiring like they used to, no matter that wages have been stagnant in real dollars for 33 years, no matter that we have a serious revenue problem?? What if we had a war? What if we had a national emergency? What if we had another financial crash like 2008?? How would we pay for it?? How would we build? How do you run America with no additional business and no revenue??

What's CNBC's End Game to this ginned-up "crisis"? "Euro-style austerity for thee, Sultan-quality mansions and caviar for ME"?? Who is buying it? Chances are, if you're hosting or guesting on CNBC, you're part of the top 3% of earners in America and you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Are these the people YOU'RE going to be listening to when you want to know what YOUR best interests are?

Do we just sit and take this childish, Grover Norquist crybaby nonsense?? Are WE the ones that are expected to pick up the bill; a margin call, if you will, for this real-life game of "Kick the Can"??

Do me a favor.

Get a Lego set of a building, try to construct it starting from the top without support or holding any of the bricks and see how far you go.

NOT. VERY.

WHEN DO THEY START SACRIFICING???? WHEN?? WHEN?? WHEN?? WHEN?? WHEN????

Where's the Advil . . . .

Ask Your Favorite Conservative: If the U.S. system of "health care" is "NUMMER ONE" . . . .

. . . then name for me just ONE, or several, industrialized nations working as we speak to switch OVER to a completely for-profit model.

I'll be here all DAY.

Oh yeah, "President-Elect Romney" will be coming to my kid's HS tomorrow.

The joke is, I'm not kidding. In the e-mail they sent out to the parents, they referred to him as "President-Elect Romney".

Uh . . . don't you have to, you know, actually WIN a presidency before you can be a "President-Elect"?

An -elect is a political candidate who has been elected to an office but who has not yet been sworn in or officially taken office. These may include an incoming president, senator, representative, governor and mayor.


Oh, that's right, you DO.

Asshats.

"Work Hard! Millions of Obama Supporters Are Depending On You!"

- Seen on the tree lawn of a Bay Village, OH home. Bay Village is a mighty Repub-urb in Cuyahoga County.

You know, of all shite catchphrases conservatives come up with, this has to be one of the DUMBEST and most insulting. I can call a conservative all kinds of things . . . such as "astronomically stupid", "foot-shooting", "selfish", "hateful", "gullible beyond redemption" . . . but I would never call them "lazy" or question their work ethic.

What, people who vote Democratic don't WORK? REALLY??

Also . . . I saw . . . in Bay Village, of course . . . my first "Joe the Plumber" sign. Except it's under his real name, in white letters with red background: "WURZELBACHER"

Not Joe the Not Plumber who did NOT buy a plumbing business has as much a chance to beat Marcy Kaptur in our district as I do in beating LeBron James in a one-on-one basketball match.

"Binders Full of Women", "47%", "Fire Big Bird". That's what he's going to be remembered for.

And it's not even over yet.

A guy who for the past 6 years has been running for president on an economic platform that he's never practiced in his life just got made a non-entity tonight. His face showed it and the Corporate-purchased media is working overtime to spin it.

All I gotta say is, I'm glad tonight, but watch out.

This means the Sheldon Adelsons and the Koch's and their Supreme Court and the corporations just may be getting more ornery and nastier . . . and possibly illegal. This means you're going to see more and more "2016"s, more Jerome Corsi-Donald Trump crapola, more CNBC and Faux with every right-wing shitstick they can dig up from Big Banking, Big Pharma, Big Leisure and Big Retail.

They aren't going to stop until we're ruined . . . one way or another.

OK, Explain This to Me Like I’m A Complete Idiot, Part 11: Republican Peasant Voter Logic.

Our series today focuses on a conundrum which has yet to be answered:

How do voters buy into a presidential candidate's economic philosophy that even the candidate doesn’t think makes logical or business sense?

Let me ask you something. How did wealthy people like Mitt Romney become wealthy?

Did he put humanity over profit? Was he a kind soul, caring of job creation and workers needs? Did he put community responsibility and worker livelihood first and foremost? Did he get wealthy by being charitable . . . or, to quote certain slobbering pundits, “redistributionist”? Did the workers benefit from his generosity in the form of job security or a living wage that met their cost of living increases?

You and I know what the answer would be to all of those questions. Wealthy people didn’t get extraordinarily wealthy by being generous. They never have, they never will; not in business, not in life. Someone who thinks of money and profit when they wake up and thinks how to make more money and profit before they go to bed isn’t thinking about the overworked employee’s mortgage that she can’t make or the wage slave that has to choose between paying the electric bill or buying food. They’re only thinking about how they can game the system even further to gain more money and profit, and that in turn means gaming the government by lobbying, PACs or running for office themselves (see: Whitman, Meg and Fiorina, Carly).

After all, wasn’t it former WalMart CEO Lee Scott that said, regarding the Employee Free Choice Act: "We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us”?

They don’t steer with you.

Now, if we know that the 1% by principle aren’t going to give any quarter unless they’re forced to (via taxation, which, in turn means they’ll toss some lucre into their businesses or charities to avoid paying taxes), how can they logically expect us to believe that by lowering taxes on the wealthiest Americans (essentially giving them free money), they’ll have some kind of awakening and rain jobs on the poor and unfortunate? Isn’t that exactly what Mitt Romney’s campaigning on and hoping you’ll believe . . . that he all of a sudden WANTS a "win-win" for thee and thine?

So let me get this straight: The best solution for the country’s ills is a parasite capitalist that, via offshoring jobs and leveraged buyouts, ruthlessly plowed his way to a quarter-billion-dollar fortune . . . on the premise that “government needs to be run like a business” and “as a businessman, he knows what it takes to create jobs” when, AS a businessman, he practiced no such benevolence because it’s not in the best interests of a parasite capitalist or a corporation SUCH as Bain Capital to BE that way?

How do his peasant supporters square this nonsense up, especially since he’s already vowed to drastically slash the social safety net, eliminate even more government jobs, institute a voucher system for Medicare, expand military occupations and give even more and more of the country’s largesse to the wealthy, thereby either expanding the National Debt or raising taxes on the middle/working/poor (since there is no way this plan is “revenue neutral” and there’s no way he’s selling out his handlers)??

If this sort of hogwash hasn't worked in 32 years, and the peasantry either pretty much knows this or are just plain too stupid to breathe, what makes them think that ReaganBushonomics on Steroids is going to thrust all of America to greatness??

If nothing else, maybe the uneducated and low-info voter can be reached by this simple phrase on a recent FB image going around:



Don’t employ the problem and expect a solution.

Not going to duck the tough issues???

THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT DUCK!!

Here's an example . . .. WHERE ARE Mitt's TAX RETURNS?????

Marc Andreesen, from 2004, about Free Trade and Job Offshoring . . .

http://www.nfap.net/researchactivities/globalsourcing/itemsInterest/AndreesenDobbsCNN_030404.pdf#search=\\'Andreesen,%20offshoring\\'

DOBBS: There are very few issues right now that are more difficult for corporate America to deal with than the issue of outsourcing. You support it. You support it vigorously. Why?

ANDREESEN: Yes. I think it's purely good for the American company and it's good for American workers. It's part of the natural process of creating new jobs. I think job destruction and job creation go hand in hand. In the last 10 years, this economy has destroyed 325 million jobs and created 342 million new jobs. And, in general, those news jobs are better jobs than the ones that were destroyed.

snip

DOBBS: Marc, we can sit here and not really edify anyone including ourselves by trading statistics. The fact is it is 2004, the fact is in the most event report on trade we show for the first time negative numbers in the area in which you live, that is technology which is supposed to be bringing us all of these wonderful jobs that so far are not materializing.

ANDREESEN: Look, technology took a big hit in the last four years due to recession. When I was involved in creating the first Internet browser in 1993, I can tell how many Internet jobs there were, there were 200. I can tell you how many there are now, there's two million now. We created new jobs in the next 10 years. I'll tell you what, we're going to create a huge number of new jobs in the next 10 years.

DOBBS: I expect you to do so. What I don't expect you to understand is that there is no one listening to us that should take -- has any reason to take as you an article of faith that by moving jobs overseas simply to acquire cheap labor that in any way adds to innovation to this country.

ANDREESEN: Absolutely it does. It compounds innovation, allows American companies to invest both overseas and the U.S. It allows American companies to hire more people in the U.S. It allows American companies to sell their products and services into a larger global market. I tell you another thing, it encourages peace and stability worldwide. The best thing that can happen to us from a national security standpoint we determine to develop the middle classes in India and China. And in fact the really best thing we could do is to start offshoring to the Middle East. If you want to systematicly go after global security and peace, figure out how to bring everybody into this world of increasing returns from economic, increasing returns from trade...

DOBBS: Marc, you surely not suggesting that we create a middle class anywhere in the world at the expense of our own?

ANDREESEN: Of course not. It's not at the expense of our own.

DOBBS: That's precisely the effect of what is happening.

ANDREESEN: No it's not.

DOBBS: No, sir, it is.

ANDREESEN: Trade has been win-win for 200 years.

DOBBS: Win-win. Marc, you are too smart for this. You are absolutely too smart for this. When you hear win-win, what do you think of, a software salesman, right?


Yeah . . . those 10 years are almost up . . . . where was that influx of jobs? How's that "not zero-sum" issue working out for the workers?

Lying liars will keep on lying, even when they're being interviewed by fellow right-wingers.
Posted by HughBeaumont | Tue Oct 9, 2012, 09:30 PM (2 replies)

Why does no one consider the "All Democrats are Communists" people as lunatic fringe?

Seriously . . . this frame of mind is practically mainstreamed.

What if I were to say "ALL Republicans are hateful, extremely bigoted Fascist reactionaries who worship corporations"?? I'd be rightfully admonished by people even on my side and called much worse by those targeted for such a broadbrush.

So why is it perfectly all right, no one batting an eyelash or raising one fuss, when "All Democrats are Communists!" or some variation of it comes spewing out of a TeaHadist's mouth?

Don't believe me? Ask any garden variety Republican, RIGHT NOW, if they think this is true. Think you'll get an answer like "well, no, I don't belive that they're all (insert red bait insult)s, that's crazy."???

We pretty much give them their own segments on news shows (Victoria Jackson, Bernie Marcus on CNBC, etc), Faux or otherwise.

A Communist likely wouldn't BE a member of any mainstreamed American political party.

When the red-baiters should be in the same league as birthers, their bullshit is seen as normal instead. And that is something I have a huge fucking problem with.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »