Republican Civil War updates

Posted in the US News Forum

First Prev
of 13
Next Last

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#1 Jan 18, 2012
Liberal troops need to use this space to post ongoing Republican attacks, including propaganda.

The Republican Civil War, which was declared in 1981, has been a very one-sided, never-ending series of battles because most liberal troops have put the responsibility for self defense on the shoulders of legislators.
In fact, most liberals have completely ignored the war. This writer was shocked at the absence of outrage when Reagan created the homeless crisis, especially from Protestant leaders and followers.

Recently Romney lied about how large his income has been, even though Republican voters consistently favor more money going to the wealthy. So, the question is, did Romney admit that taking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy is wrong? Is he just a career liar and lied without giving it a second thought?

Republicans have been so successful for so many decades because they excel at spreading propaganda. They've managed to get tens of millions of middle class taxpayers, who conplain constantly about having to pay so much in taxes, to vote to pay more so the wealthy can get richer.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#2 Jan 18, 2012
www.republicancivilwar.com - The Enemy Within

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#3 Jan 18, 2012
Democratic legislators are accusing Republicans and the Fed of manufacturing the housing crisis.

They obviously knew that all along, but now have the courage to say it publicly.
That might be the result of the number of Americans speaking out against the Fed, as more information becomes available about that treason.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#5 Jan 18, 2012
The secret government (the Fed) is now exposed.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#7 Apr 28, 2012
Republicans are hoping to put a new Commander in Chief in power next January, then they can attack and kill another million homeless people, maybe start more wars overseas, and totally destroy the U.S. economy!
They just know that, even though every guy they've elected has done so much evil, the NEXT one will be great, or maybe the one after that...
They just KNOW that VOTING is the best solution, even though it's never worked yet.
They just KNOW that THEIR candidates are all GOD's guys, so whatever happens, blame God, not them. They know because their political and religious leaders tell them so.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#8 Apr 28, 2012

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#9 Jul 7, 2012
The 1 Percent’s Problem May 31, 2012
As the widening financial divide cripples the U.S. economy, even those at the top will pay a steep price.
…the gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent is vast when looked at in terms of annual income, and even vaster when looked at in terms of wealth—that is, in terms of accumulated capital and other assets. Consider the Walton family: the six heirs to the Walmart empire possess a combined wealth of some $90 billion, which is equivalent to the wealth of the entire bottom 30 percent of U.S. society.(Many at the bottom have zero or negative net worth, especially after the housing debacle.) Warren Buffett put the matter correctly when he said,“There’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years and my class has won.”
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#10 Jul 7, 2012
From the right, you sometimes hear the argument made that inequality is basically a good thing: as the rich increasingly benefit, so does everyone else. This argument is false: while the rich have been growing richer, most Americans (and not just those at the bottom) have been unable to maintain their standard of living, let alone to keep pace. A typical full-time male worker receives the same income today he did a third of a century ago.
Put sentiment aside. There are good reasons why plutocrats should care about inequality anyway—even if they’re thinking only about themselves. The rich do not exist in a vacuum. They need a functioning society around them to sustain their position. Widely unequal societies do not function efficiently and their economies are neither stable nor sustainable. The evidence from history and from around the modern world is unequivocal: there comes a point when inequality spirals into economic dysfunction for the whole society, and when it does, even the rich pay a steep price.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#11 Jul 7, 2012
The Consumption Problem
When one interest group holds too much power, it succeeds in getting policies that help itself in the short term rather than help society as a whole over the long term. This is what has happened in America when it comes to tax policy, regulatory policy, and public investment. The consequence of channeling gains in income and wealth in one direction only is easy to see when it comes to ordinary household spending, which is one of the engines of the American economy.

It is no accident that the periods in which the broadest cross sections of Americans have reported higher net incomes—when inequality has been reduced, partly as a result of progressive taxation—have been the periods in which the U.S. economy has grown the fastest. It is likewise no accident that the current recession, like the Great Depression, was preceded by large increases in inequality. When too much money is concentrated at the top of society, spending by the average American is necessarily reduced—or at least it will be in the absence of some artificial prop. Moving money from the bottom to the top lowers consumption because higher-income individuals consume, as a fraction of their income, less than lower-income individuals do.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#12 Jul 7, 2012
Note:
Republicans and Tea Partiers, and Libertarians:
ARE YOU LISTENING?
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THIS SIMPLE, or is even this too much for your little pea-brains?

YOU ARE DESTROYING US ALL!
GROW UP, and start thinking for yourselves!

I'm sick to death of your using stupidity as an excuse for TREASON!

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#13 Jul 7, 2012
In our imaginations, it doesn’t always seem as if this is the case, because spending by the wealthy is so conspicuous. Just look at the color photographs in the back pages of the weekend Wall Street Journal of houses for sale. But the phenomenon makes sense when you do the math. Consider someone like Mitt Romney, whose income in 2010 was $21.7 million. Even if Romney chose to live a much more indulgent lifestyle, he would spend only a fraction of that sum in a typical year to support himself and his wife in their several homes. But take the same amount of money and divide it among 500 people—say, in the form of jobs paying $43,400 apiece—and you’ll find that almost all of the money gets spent.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#14 Jul 8, 2012
The relationship is straightforward and ironclad: as more money becomes concentrated at the top, aggregate demand goes into a decline. Unless something else happens by way of intervention, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying—and that means that there will be growing unemployment, which will dampen demand even further. In the 1990s that “something else” was the tech bubble. In the first dec­ade of the 21st century, it was the housing bubble. Today, the only recourse, amid deep recession, is government spending—which is exactly what those at the top are now hoping to curb.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#15 Jul 8, 2012
The “Rent Seeking” Problem
Here I need to resort to a bit of economic jargon. The word “rent” was originally used, and still is, to describe what someone received for the use of a piece of his land—it’s the return obtained by virtue of ownership, and not because of anything one actually does or produces. This stands in contrast to “wages,” for example, which connotes compensation for the labor that workers provide. The term “rent” was eventually extended to include monopoly profits—the income that one receives simply from the control of a monopoly. In time, the meaning was expanded still further to include the returns on other kinds of ownership claims. If the government gave a company the exclusive right to import a certain amount of a certain good, such as sugar, then the extra return was called a “quota rent.” The acquisition of rights to mine or drill produces a form of rent. So does preferential tax treatment for special interests. In a broad sense,“rent seeking” defines many of the ways by which our current political process helps the rich at the expense of everyone else, including transfers and subsidies from the government, laws that make the marketplace less competitive, laws that allow C.E.O.’s to take a disproportionate share of corporate revenue (though Dodd-Frank has made matters better by requiring a non-binding shareholder vote on compensation at least once every three years), and laws that permit corporations to make profits as they degrade the environment.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#16 Jul 8, 2012
The magnitude of “rent seeking” in our economy, while hard to quantify, is clearly enormous. Individuals and corporations that excel at rent seeking are handsomely rewarded. The financial industry, which now largely functions as a market in speculation rather than a tool for promoting true economic productivity, is the rent-seeking sector par excellence. Rent seeking goes beyond speculation. The financial sector also gets rents out of its domination of the means of payment—the exorbitant credit- and debit-card fees and also the less well-known fees charged to merchants and passed on, eventually, to consumers. The money it siphons from poor and middle-class Americans through predatory lending practices can be thought of as rents. In recent years, the financial sector has accounted for some 40 percent of all corporate profits. This does not mean that its social contribution sneaks into the plus column, or comes even close. The crisis showed how it could wreak havoc on the economy. In a rent-seeking economy such as ours has become, private returns and social returns are badly out of whack.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#17 Aug 3, 2012
In their simplest form, rents are nothing more than re-distributions from one part of society to the rent seekers. Much of the inequality in our economy has been the result of rent seeking, because, to a significant degree, rent seeking re-distributes money from those at the bottom to those at the top.
But there is a broader economic consequence: the fight to acquire rents is at best a zero-sum activity. Rent seeking makes nothing grow. Efforts are directed toward getting a larger share of the pie rather than increasing the size of the pie. But it’s worse than that: rent seeking distorts resource allocations and makes the economy weaker. It is a centripetal force: the rewards of rent seeking become so outsize that more and more energy is directed toward it, at the expense of everything else. Countries rich in natural resources are infamous for rent-seeking activities. It’s far easier to get rich in these places by getting access to resources at favorable terms than by producing goods or services that benefit people and increase productivity. That’s why these economies have done so badly, in spite of their seeming wealth. It’s easy to scoff and say: We’re not Nigeria, we’re not Congo. But the rent-seeking dynamic is the same.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#18 Aug 3, 2012
The Fairness Problem
People are not machines. They have to be motivated to work hard. If they feel that they are being treated unfairly, it can be difficult to motivate them. This is one of the central tenets of modern labor economics, encapsulated in the so-called efficiency-wage theory, which argues that how firms treat their workers—including how much they pay them—affects productivity. It was, in fact, a theory elaborated nearly a century ago by the great economist Alfred Marshall, who observed that “highly paid labour is generally efficient and therefore not dear labour.” In truth, it’s wrong to think of this proposition as just a theory: it has been borne out by countless economic experiments.
While people will always disagree over the precise meaning of what constitutes “fair,” there is a growing sense in America that the current disparity in income, and the way wealth is allocated in general, is profoundly unfair. There’s no begrudging the wealth accrued by those who have transformed our economy—the inventors of the computer, the pioneers of biotechnology. But, for the most part, these are not the people at the top of our economic pyramid. Rather, to a too large extent, it’s people who have excelled at rent seeking in one form or another. And, to most Americans, that seems unfair.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#19 Aug 4, 2012
People were surprised when the financial firm MF Global, headed by Jon Corzine, suddenly collapsed into bankruptcy last year, leaving victims by the thousands as a result of actions that may prove to have been criminal; but given Wall Street’s recent history, I’m not sure people were all that surprised to learn that several MF Global executives would still be getting their bonuses. When corporate C.E.O.’s argue that wages have to be reduced or that there must be layoffs in order for companies to compete—and simultaneously increase their own compensation—workers rightly consider what is happening to be unfair. This in turn affects their efforts on the job, their loyalty to the firm, and their willingness to invest in its future. The widespread sense by workers in the Soviet Union that they were being mistreated in exactly this way—exploited by managers who lived high on the hog—played a major role in the hollowing out of the Soviet economy, and in its ultimate collapse. As the old Soviet joke had it,“They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#20 Aug 4, 2012
In a society in which inequality is widening, fairness is not just about wages and income, or wealth. It’s a far more generalized perception. Do I seem to have a stake in the direction society is going, or not? Do I share in the benefits of collective action, or not? If the answer is a loud “no,” then brace for a decline in motivation whose repercussions will be felt economically and in all aspects of civic life.
For Americans, one key aspect of fairness is opportunity: everyone should have a fair shot at living the American Dream.
There are many costs to this lack of opportunity. A large number of Americans are not living up to their potential; we’re wasting our most valuable asset, our talent. As we slowly grasp what’s been happening, there will be an erosion of our sense of identity, in which America is seen as a fair country. This will have direct economic effects—but also indirect ones, fraying the bonds that hold us together as a nation.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#21 Aug 4, 2012
The Mistrust Problem
One of the puzzles in modern political economy is why anyone bothers to vote. Very few elections actually turn on the ballot of a single individual. There is a cost to voting—no state has an explicit penalty for staying home, but it takes time and effort to get to the polls—and there is seemingly almost never a benefit. Modern political and economic theory assumes the existence of rational, self-interested actors. On that basis, why anyone would vote is a mystery.
The answer is that we’ve been inculcated with notions of “civic virtue.” It is our responsibility to vote. But civic virtue is fragile. If the belief takes hold that the political and economic systems are stacked, individuals will feel released from their civic obligations. When that social contract is abrogated—when trust between a government and its citizens fails—disillusionment, disengagement, or worse is sure to follow. In the United States today, and in many other democracies around the world, mistrust is on the ascendant.
(next post)

“ Soon: too late to protest”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#22 Aug 5, 2012
It’s even built in. The head of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, made it perfectly clear: sophisticated investors don’t, or at least shouldn’t, rely on trust. Those who bought the products his bank sold were consenting adults who should have known better. They should have known that Goldman Sachs had the means, and the incentive, to design products that would fail; that they had the means and the incentive to create asymmetries of information—where they knew more about the products than the buyers did—and the means and the incentive to take advantage of those asymmetries. The people who fell victim to the investment banks were, for the most part, well-off investors. But deceptive credit-card practices and predatory lending have left Americans more broadly with a sense that banks are not to be trusted.
(next post)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Realtime 1,232,966
News Ireland same-sex marriage 5 min Quest 46
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 10 min Righteous 2,257
News Sarah Palin's fans push for 2012 presidential run (Dec '09) 10 min DBWriter 11,159
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Dogen 163,933
News Josh Duggar and the left's schadenfreude 14 min New Perspective 7
News Russia providing arms to Ukrainian separatists:... 16 min Pro Ukraine 1,293
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr spud 328,439
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr 2 Watt Light bulb 189,893
More from around the web