Reply With Quote
I knew this thread would either be about Repugs, or Corporations
This really sums up how conservatives and Repugs have ed up America for the lower 90%, and are now unstoppable from continuing to up America.
===========
AlterNet
6 Shocking Ways Conservatives Helped Cause the Economic Destruction of America
By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future
Posted on June 20, 2010, Printed on June 21, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/147262/
It seems that you can look at a chart of almost anything and right around 1981 or soon after you'll see the chart make a sharp change in direction, and probably not in a good way. And I really do mean almost anything, from economics to trade to infrastructure to ... well almost anything. I spent some time looking for charts of things, and here are just a few examples. In each of the charts below look for the year 1981, when Reagan took office.
Conservative policies transformed the United States from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years, and it has only gotten worse since then:
Working people's
share
of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:
This resulted in intense
concentration
of wealth at the top:
And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:
Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)
None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.)
Please leave a comment pointing people to a chart with a change after Reagan took office. How about a chart that shows America's investment in maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure over time?
Sometimes it can be so obvious where a problem comes from, but very hard to change it. The anti-government, pro-corporate-rule Reagan Revolution screwed a lot of things up for regular people and for the country. Some of this disaster we saw happening at the time and some of it has taken 30 years to become clear. But for all the damage done these "conservative" policies greatly enriched a few entrenched interests, who use their wealth and power to keep things the way they are. And the rest of us, hit so hard by the changes, don't have the resources to fight the wealth and power. (Speaking of which, you can donate to CAF here.)
Look at the influence of these entrenched interests on our current deficits, for example. Obviously conservative policies of tax cuts and military spending increases caused the massive deficits. But entrenched interests use their wealth and power to keep us from making needed changes. The facts are here, plain as the noses on our faces. The ability to fight it eludes us. Will we step up and do something to reverse the disaster caused by the Reagan Revolution or not?
© 2010 Campaign for America's Future All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/147262/
===============
Since 1980 and St Ronnie getting the Movement Conservatives' BALL rolling, most of America has stood still or slipped back, while the wealthy have advanced their share beyond that of the 1920s.
... as planned all along by the super-wealthy cap alists, corps, conservatives, Repugs.
I knew this thread would either be about Repugs, or Corporations
Repugs, corps, conservatives are the real enemies, not the govt (which works for the corps and capitalists), not Muslims (victims of corporate imperialism), not Dems (spineless, helpless s).
I read it anyways.
LOL@ Repugs, corps, conservatives are the real enemies!!!
dildo
Jack is always ready with his impeccable counter-arguments and refutations.
hey, backoff. his knowledge about the oil biz is comedy gold.
Repugs, corps, conservatives are the real enemies. Your evidence, charts that started when a republican was president and 30 years later............ You're ing stupid.
alternet.org
I think that's where Keith Olbermann does his "worst person" research.
the charts go back decades BEFORE the neo-conservatives and Repugs grabbed powere, RIF.
Rif, the article wants you to view the few charts they selected and start with 1981 when Reagan was Prez and draw the conclusion that consevatives caused the economic destruction of america (lol@destruction) but you want to take it a step further and call repubilcans, conservatives and corp enemies of our country. You are a ing tool man. You just spew nonsense.
Blame Reagan! ing classic! The blame games contiunue with this one. Forget Clinton and now Obama over the past 30 years. Keep the message simple. Blame anyone that is not a dem.
I've never seen such amazing ability to decry opponents doing one thing, then immediately do it within the next sentence.Blame anyone that is not a dem.
When did we become a nation of blaming the other guy for our problems?
Is that how you took that? Let me clear that up for ya, buddy.
People like Buttons only blame repugs. They fail to forget dems have been in office too. Love President Clinton. Wish Hiliary was our prez now.
We became the largest debtor nation not because of politics but because American oil companies used to own foreign oil and pay them royalties. Then, these now OPEC states nationalized their oil companies, kicked the US out, and then first embargoed us, then started controlling production to keep price up. The consumption of oil has steadily increased world wide, including the US. Meanwhile, our domestic production has fallen. We developed a trade imbalance and became a debtor nation. That's all that's happened here.No more cheap oil. Who was in office or running congress in this regard was and is, irrelevent.
Saudi Arabia can only buy so many F-16's.
We're in a pickle, and it's come to a head. We were told this would happen 30 years ago and did nothing about it.
Edit: Now that I think of 'things coming to a head we were warned about' William Colby, CIA director in the early 70's did an epic playboy interview in the middle 70's. I recall reading it in college...you know, when I 'read' Playboy.
He said the greatest threat to America in 30 years was ...Islamic extremism and massive migration of people from Latin America.
I have a load of old Newsweeks and US News and World reports from the 60's and 70's and some early 80's. The Tet Offensive, MLK and Bobby Kennedy assassination...Watergate...Woodstock...Nixon goes to China..Iran hostage crisis, Gloria Steinem...Row -v- Wade... Trust me, we were told what was coming and ...further...life now...nothing compared to the 60's and early 70's as far as civil unrest. And you think the economy sucks now...late 70's to 1982...horrible. When Reagan took office this nation was down down down. Defeated in Vietnam, Watergate...double digit inflation and high interest rates. High unemployment. And even though I wasn't a huge Reagan fan and I believe if I recall, voted for Bush I in the primary, he did bring us out of 'the funk'. Things ARE better now in many ways but those things they said would come to haunt us, have in various ways. And not just the big stories but the smaller articles on technology and medicine...surprisingly right on the money. What is shocking to me these days is not that we fight amongst each other but what we fight over. Stupid . A flag in a school. Whatever...there was bickering back then, just not the self loathing hatred of America from it's own citizens like you see now from some people. You gotta give a little.
But what I think when I read them is, you know, the government really can't do that much about things. Pop culture, what we are as individuals that make up the nation, is far more powerful, for good and bad. The 'moral fiber' of our nation. We think the government can fix all, but they can't. The government is a sledgehammer. There is no such thing as 'subtle' government intrusion. Anyway, I ramble. I wish everyone could read all these old mags. The cigarette ads, the car ads.... are priceless. But, trust me, we knew all this was coming. A lot of you probably weren't alive during the oil embargo or Vietnam or the assassinations or the Iran hostage thing. Bad times. I give it to Reagan. He came in and snapped people out of it.
Last edited by word; 06-21-2010 at 07:49 PM.
Too kind by half. I saw Daily Kos attributed in various searches online.
If you are a fiscal conservative irl with your own finances you will be the last to be eaten by the bear.
It's all good.
Unfortunately when you're talking about conservatives, you're not limited to the Republican party, you've got to include right-center "Democrats" as part of the problem.
And what a problem it is: there's no real opposition party or movement to counter trickle-down market orthodoxies. We're talking about the complete capture of government by business.
Most Americans it seems, don't know what they're in for. As an American expat, I've lived in a 3rd world country for 8 years. I've seen how hopelessness and passivity can become ingrained in a culture. If we don't have a revival and renewal of our democracy, we're headed that way.
You fail from the start.
Check the statistics. I'll bet you find the majority of those 10% rich are democrats with old money.
The 400 Richest Americans 2009
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-21-2010 at 11:23 PM.
Washington Times Op-Ed: The Richest 1%
Dateline: December 18, 2002
Headline: The richest 1 percent
Byline: The Washington Times
OK, look at the numbers. When you look at the $68 million for democrats and $44 million for democrats, the republicans get more of the smaller donors. When you include the $1,000 and greater contributions, the republicans get $317 million and the democrats <307 million. The democrats gained ground by $14 million from this group.So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.
But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million. Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.
In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.
But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic Party.
In other words, the democrats received $14 million more from the rich than republicans. It gets more dramatic when they look at the $10,000 mark.
Now you can find different numbers from different times and ways of measurement. This still doesn't dhow a breakdown of wealth vs. political affiliation. That's a bit hard to find, at least for me. Keywords and too many links.
The Dems are not guiltless. They bought into the destructive conservative class warfare, but it was the VRWC, Movement Conservatives, and Repugs who pushed hard for conservative "principles", and Dems tagged along like spineless pricks. Same performance for the Dems in the Iraq war-for-oil.
Conservative and Repugs are an unmitigated disaster for the USA. They have solved no problems, only created disasters, while sucking wealth out of the the lower 90%.
This is a step in the right direction. There may be hope for you yet.
Ever since NAFTA, it was intuitively clear to me that we would be moving in the direction of Mexico and Canada, rather than the other way around.
Reality principle: relatively speaking, Mexico is a solidly middle class country. For size and racial heterogeneity though, maybe a better comparison would be Brazil.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
