Tweet
FDL poster “solai” has noted that “Last Friday Ari Fleischer, in a moment of honesty, said Mitch Daniels was a possible Presidential candidate because “he did a good job of getting rid of the surplus by putting in tax cuts”. Got that? Think back to Norquist who said the way you get rid of social programs is to make the deficit so large that they become unaffordable. The goal is not, and never has been, fiscal responsibility, the goal is to end social programs.”
Why the hell the Democratic Party can’t say the above – over and over again – is a mystery – until you realize that the Democratic Part is corporate controlled.
When the GOP tells the media the why behind what they are doing, and the media, instead of reporting what they are doing and why, reads from a script the GOP hands them about not spending what you do not have, the media reveals itself to bought and paid for by the rich and corporate – and an untrustworthy resource for the non-rich and corporate.
While we still have a few unions left with a bit of assets, we need those unions to start up a media outlet – radio and TV – beyond the sparse offerings we have today. At the very least a local market media buy by Soros, Hollywood liberals, and unions would give an opposing point of view a foothold. Given the social message of the liberals is the same as Jesus’s message and indeed the message in Judaism and Islam , we should be able to get those who take their Bible message seriously to contribute to the cost of running a media outlet in return for time for a religious message on the air, granted we will lose to the GOP the religious who are into “God wants you to be rich”. The progressives and liberals must decide who they want to partner with because by themselves the liberal activists have no place to go but back to the corporate controlled Democrats (or stay home and watch the GOP win), and they are too small a group to effect change without partners. The rich and corporate atheists get along fine with the rich and corporate religious, their differences in beliefs not interfering in their ability to come together to protect their assets. I wonder if the left can do the same partnering to protect social justice.
12 Comments
Thanks, that explains how they can talk about budget cuts with a straight face and at the same time give the rich tax cuts and keep the war spending humming.
And yeah, corporate media is horrid enough that I cancelled my cable subscription years ago.
It actually goes beyond what you indicate; it’s as Kucinich stated on DemocracyNOw, it’s about the privatization of the ‘public commons’.
If it was proven beyond a doubt, that the ‘public commons was worth $Trillions to the American people as a whole, and that privatization of the ‘public commons’ would return at most, few $Million to a few rich and powerful people, those people would still insist that it was their right to sieze the commons for their own use.
This is not really a hypothetical situation, they are destroying our common inheritance for short term personal gain.
to know that the political right wants to destroy all the social programs that support the middle and lower classes is not a surprise to progressives that have followed this. The real problem is that those who are not alert to the political movements find this kind of knowledge boring and can’t be bothered to look at it or they just don’t believe it. The cowardice of the liberal politicians and pundits to stand up to the right wing radicals has help immeasurably to put us in this position.
What I don’t get is why others don’t get it.
Because they do not know their history:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/landls.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Enclosure_Act
To offer one possible answer to your query:
There is no known cure for stupid.
Reaganism has often used misdirection as a political tactic.
To insert and shield corporatist and ultra wealthy subsidy and tax cut schemes,policies and desired payouts around.
To fit electoral season polished flying turds in and around.
Misdirection works for Reaganism and the Reaganites. Has been for 30 years. Seems to work for Barack Obama too.
Ronald Reagan evidently just hated goverment and really hated big government.
Why would government hater B movie star Ronald Reagan have wanted to be Governor of California or POTUS then? Well? — why would he? Or was it always more about who wanted Ronald Reagan in government to cut taxes and sabotage what FDR,Harry Truman and LBJ had done as American Presidents for poor and average means Americans?
Misdirection?
Government is the problem Ronald Reagan told us.
Misdirection?
In autumn of 2008 it seems Wall Street and Big Banks were in very big fiscal peril. Government did not seem to be the problem for Bush or Obama as they orchestrated hundreds of billion $$ rescues of Wall Street and Big Banks.
Misdirection — there I go again.
Barack Obama is reportedly a big fan of Ronny Raygun.
Not so clear or knowable here in 2011 is where do FDR,Truman or LBJ fit in BO’s DINO practice of WH politics?
The fiscal/deficit “burning issue” that now is being kept in front of Americans via the American political media at both federal and state level is well done misdirection. One is led to believe the USA is a third world nation that is incapable of doing much about anything ever cuz’ the taxes are too damn high and the rich just ain’t rich enuf to be paying more taxes!
Misdirection — there I go again — again.
Meanwhile these Miracle Grand trillion plus $$ Pentagon/CIA year to year federal spend-a-thons just keep going and growing.
If this fiscal/deficit “concern” for WashingtonDC is so real and urgent? — then where was it while the Pentagon/CIA sent in several hundreds of millions $$ of cruise missiles into and around Libya over past couple of weeks?
Misdirection — there I go again. See how this works?
Barack Obama has now started his 2012 WH re-election campaign with 20 months to go from April 2011. Which — if Barack Obama spends a predicted one billion $$ on WH re-election efforts — works out to about $50 million each month or about $13 million (rounding up) each week between now and November 2012.
Do Americans really need 20 months of Obama WH electioneering?
Both D Party and R Party management should learn to do with less time and money for selling corporatist/militarist and misdirection politics in American WH elections.
Can we have some WH campaign fiscal restraint please?
Some focus on time span burn-out of 20 month WH campaigns?
Twenty months of More False Hope and Change? Really? Sheesh.
Of course. Classic capital-labor antithesis.
the goal is not fiscal responsibility — for either party.
fiscal responsibility would mean targeting the size of the fed gov. deficit appropriately (which means, for today, it would be larger) and targeting the spending to public purpose rather than trillions to rentiers.
“The rich and corporate atheists get along fine with the rich and corporate religious, their differences in beliefs not interfering in their ability to come together to protect their assets. I wonder if the left can do the same partnering to protect social justice.”
I very much support your thesis here, having just posted on another diary that the far left does itself a disservice by damning religious sentiment when the core of faith concerns itself with compassion and love. There is an irrational fear preventing such alliances and that has made the progressive cause far weaker than it ought to be.
There needs to be such a forum as you suggest, where matters are not discussed antagonistically but with respect and awareness of ignorance.
Thanks for this post.
What is truly disheartening is that even if they admitted what they wanted to do, Obama would let them do it and at least 50% of the country would cheer. This nation is sick. Sick deep in it’s soul.