HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Waiting For Everyman » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 Next »

Waiting For Everyman

Profile Information

Name: Ann
Gender: Female
Hometown: Maryland
Home country: USA
Member since: Mon Jun 23, 2008, 12:17 PM
Number of posts: 8,765

About Me

My namesake... http://youtu.be/GgXzWhexJh0 ... If I were asked to recommend only one political / history book it would be this one... http://www.amazon.com/Treason-America-Anton-Chaitkin/dp/0943235006 ... Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin. I do NOT endorse all of the views by Chaitkin external to this book, nor all of his actions, nor all of his associations, but I DO highly recommend this book. It is one every US citizen and everyone interested in its history should read. It it well written, meticulously sourced, and it is eye-opening -- even for those who consider themselves already knowledgeable. If you have not read it before, you need to read it, it is need-to-know information, and what it has to say is not going to be found in many places, if anywhere, else. That is my tip for whoever is passing by.

Journal Archives

Free trade is a race to the bottom.

It brings down wages in prosperous countries and perpetuates poverty wages in outsourced countries (plus sending pollution there).

It's like water, you can't have unequal levels or the higher level of water will flow down to the lower level, like a waterfall. If the only goal is to tear the US down without improving the rest of the world, then that's a good way to do it; otherwise, it accomplishes nothing.

Other countries need to bring their wages up, and make products to sell to their own people. That is how creating a consumer market is done. It will work for other countries as it has worked for us here.

Look up Henry Ford, who made Ford cars, he insisted on paying his employees a lot more than other car companies so they could afford to buy his cars, and so of course he sold a lot more cars than his competitors. It worked. It always works.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 02:41 PM (0 replies)

The 5% population fallacy. Rubio said it too.

The number of people we have is irrelevant to how much of the world's buying power we are.

We are 27% of the global consumer market.


We don't need to trade with the world, we would do BETTER only selling to ourselves. Why? because then all of us would be employed (as it used to be) and at very high income (as it used to be, relatively speaking), with much better quality of life... except for the class that is vastly overpaid now at our expense.

Bankers, top executives, stars and such used to make a lot less. Why? Another sane idea called a 92% top tax rate for excessively high incomes. It stops people paying themselves ridiculous amounts of money just because they can.

This is not a theory, it was done before and worked fabulously well. Lots of things we used to do worked fabulously well. That's why we were #1 in the world in almost every measurable category.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:58 PM (0 replies)

The big lie I have heard twice this week,

once from Rubio and once from Hillary, is that the US is only 5% of the world's population so of course we need trade.

Yes, but we're a much bigger percentage of the world's consumer market -- which is what counts. It isn't population numbers that matter, it's buying power and we have it.

We are among the few nations who could do just as well or better simply selling to ourselves (which is what we used to do back before the oligarchs took over). If other nations want a piece of our consumer market, it should be on terms beneficial to us or why do it?

Another point, our government -- Federal but also state and local -- spends a huge amount of money. If all tax dollars had to be spent here, we would have no sales or employment problems.

Related point: even some government services, such as call centers for Welfare, use outsourced labor... this is an outrage! It's subcontracted to another company (Citigroup is big into this) and then subbed again to somewhere like India. Americans should have all jobs paid for by tax dollars. It should be an ironclad law with very few narrow exceptions.

We are hemorrhaging money and jobs, and it has to stop, no matter who is elected. Otherwise I think there will be trouble from the public.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:47 AM (0 replies)

This going on while she was an attorney and First Lady of Arkansas,

if she didn't know about it she's terminally unaware. Especially since there were two investigations into it during the Clinton tenure as governor.

I find that ridiculous to believe. Credulity doesn't stretch that far.

She and Bill knew about that prisoner blood poisoning the blood suppy and they let it happen. Anybody who died from AIDS during that time could have gotten the disease from that poison blood, directly or indirectly. And anybody walking around now with those or related health issues could have gotten it from that blood.

It was even spread to numerous foreign countries, which btw have litigated this all the way through to settlement for their citizens -- 2,000 cases in Canada alone. A bunch of other countries in Europ were affected.

I have two relatives who got transfusions during that time. My husband had more than a dozen back surgeries, and my daughter was hit by a car at 7 and nearly lost a leg. Both developed ongoing additional health issues that probably came from tainted blood during the transfusions. My husband died from all of the health problems he dealt with ever since that time, 20+ years, in 2007. My daughter's an adult, still struggling with hers.

I regard what was done in Arkansas -- knowingly poisoning the blood supply -- as little different from terrorism.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Tue Mar 15, 2016, 08:08 AM (1 replies)

A person isn't going to change their vote to post on DU.

That's silly right off the top. And don't threaten us. We've had enough.

The two Dem candidates are not similar and are not equal. They are opposites in character and agenda. One is SOLD OUT. SOLD. SOLD. SOLD. SOLD. LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL. And we aren't among the buyers.

SOLD. Understand? Everyone in that same circle, politicians and media, is likewise SOLD, and under the system of "get your outlandishly big payoff and don't ever tell about this" or "get destroyed". That level of corruption is bad enogh, but it continues to corrupt new people all the time, especially any who would fix it for us.

You don't change that EVER by electing another one that is known in advance to be sold. How in the hell does that make the slightest sense?

(And in this case, we might be electing one of the actual creators of this system of corruption; certainly one of the very few key lynch pins holding it in place in this era.)

One of them is a neocon, with fans including Kagan, Cheney, and KISSINGER. Not long ago. TODAY. NOW. I didn't choose the friends, the candidate did.

If the Dem party KNOWINGLY chooses and ENABLES yet another SOLD OUT neocon, then nothing can fix that. It won't be a surprise that this country will get what it asks for and puts in office. Do we think we're going to elect a sold out neocon and somehow get a good president, or even a remotely tolerable president? How looney is that?

I'm not saying what anyone should do, I'm not saying what I will do, but these flypaper posts are over the top now.

When stating a true fact is grounds for banning or harassment via juries, I guess after 8 years I abandon this site to its echo chamber.

I can leave this board and be just fine. But I will NOT be told how to vote, especially by those who don't see a problem with the above. And yes, it goes without even saying the same thing is on the Repub side. All of them are a fail, only one candidate running is acceptable as a president. Any of the others will result in a lot of damage and it's pretty much the same including Scotus issues. If you think one of the fails will do better than the others I'd say that supposition is based on absolutely nothing.

We thought we were getting a good candidate with Obama, and the system corrupted him and he screwed us on almost everything (not talking about Congress here, just him). What do you think we'd get with a candidate we know is bad going into it.?

(I predict that once out of office, Obama will become super-wealthy so fast it'll make our heads spin. He has a big pay day coming, watch and see if I'm not right.)

A "D" in fron of the name is not going to help when the payoffs start getting collected on, and the paymasters are the same on both parties. Tell me you think the "D" will make a difference. And if you really believe that, you're in for a big surprise. But DON'T say you didn't know it going in, because you'll be getting what you literally asked for. My tiny violin will stay in its case.

Only one candidate in either party is standing up to the above, and we might not get another one for a really long time.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat Mar 12, 2016, 05:50 PM (0 replies)

Feels like a big black swan coming.

A Nassim Taleb "black swan", that is.

Coincidentally, that's been my family's symbol for going on 600 years, 400 of them in this country (as of 6 years ago).

My ancestor, in the 1470s-80s was the herald (historian/secretary) of brothers Edward IV and Richard III, the last of the House of York of England. He knew a thing or two about tectonic shifts in the political world, no doubt.

Same for the dude some generations later who came here on the ship "Sea Venture" (shipwrecked on Bermuda in a hurricane -- imagine being fortunate enough to hit that tiny unknown island in the middle of the ocean in a hurricane -- with not one life lost out of 150, who then claimed it for a new stock company they formed for it; the whole beach was full of ambergris and apparently he among others became a millionaire back then). After reaching Virginia he survived the Indian Massacre of 1622 and lived to an old age.

So there is bad luck and then there is good luck (and sometimes the two are a little mixed together). Which the black swan will bring next, we'll find out. But sometimes it comes in an incredible way.

As an aside... for all that, you'd think I'd be a great swimmer and/or sailor, right? But no, I am strangely "cursed" -- I never could float (I sink like a rock), and I sink every boat as soon as I get on them (three by now, two of them rather large so I don't try anymore). Weird, huh? It gets weirder yet, the surname of this family is Waters... Waters of the swans... and that was 150 years before Bermuda. Truth is much stranger than fiction.

No reason I'm telling you this particularly, except it seemed to be the right time for a story.

We, all of us, have a story, we all have to have a chance to be what we're meant to be, whatever that is... and that's why Sanders has to win.

Needless to say, I feel a litle invested in this place and I'd like to see it rise from the right-wing ashes of the last 4 decades, and be again what FDR proved it could be.

(Btw, no, they didn't have any slaves and they didn't steal any Indian land -- they weren't crooked enough to stay rich very long, but that's ok.)
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat Mar 12, 2016, 07:36 AM (1 replies)

Well I guess I'm a contrarian again

but while I agree with the sentiment behind it, as a Sanders supporter I'm not on board with this.

I'll just link to my reply above:
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat Mar 12, 2016, 12:58 AM (0 replies)

I'd guess that because the Stones came out earlier (1964).

He was probably phasing out of the youth scene when Led first hit (1969).

I'll bet he liked this one, a nice anti-propaganda ditty...

Although, if offered the choice, I'd also bet he might've chosen the Yardbirds from the same time-frame...

Or maybe the Kinks. Ah well, questions for another day.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Mar 11, 2016, 01:27 PM (0 replies)

We don't need a woman president. (and btw I'm a woman)

We need a competent president with character who is NOT BOUGHT. That leaves Hillary out, on all counts. There is not one office she has held that she hasn't substantially screwed up.

We are not here to give her opportunities for personal advancement. She has already advanced way beyond her actual capabilities, largely by being married to Bill.

Without that on her "resume" I highly doubt that she would've been elected to the Senate from New York, or appointed Secretary of State. Just how far is that marriage supposed to ride her? To be president? Oh hell no, we think more of our country than that! That is as offensive as the rest of the candidates except for Bernie. He is the ONLY one running who deserves that vote.

And being the darling of Henry Kissinger is a DEAL BREAKER. Wherever you're from, you don't know enough about America.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Mar 11, 2016, 11:38 AM (0 replies)

What bothers me most is that she can say this stuff with a straight face.

Or worse, sometimes a smirk. This is a woman who thinks in plausible deniability and gotcha spin designed to wrongfully kneecap another person. If it were someone else's idea and alien to her way of thinking, she wouldn't be able to say it to a large public audience. It is in fact how she thinks.

By contrast, it was clear that Sanders never dreamed she could come up with such a knowingly-twisted lie about the auto bail out. You can't plan to defend what you can't imagine. His mind does not work that way.

It reminded me of Tanya Harding's attack on Nancy Kerrigan. Clinton seemed proud of herself for it, that's who she is.

It's a fundamental thing that matters a lot. We have a real person and a fake; a positive person and a poisonous one. The idea that they're both on our side and either one's ok, is nonsense.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Fri Mar 11, 2016, 02:38 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25 Next »