0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2011 10:21 am
Even though Reagan awarded both Whitaker Chambers and James Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom, I was surprised that he didn’t also award Ayn Rand (Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum) the Presidential Medal of Freedom surely her contribution to the conservative political philosophy was as important as James Burnham. Was she omitted because she was Russian by birth or a woman? Now that Zinov’yevna “Atlas Shrugged” has been made into a movie will Zinov’yevna be awarded The Presidential Medal of Freedom? Maybe the next commie/conservative president will correct the slight after the public is aware of the strong communist connection to conservatism.

It is important to note that Baby Bush’s dad awarded William F Buckley, Jr. the Presidential Medal of Freedom for Journalism in 1991. This had to be because Buckley assembled the best field of communist intellectuals in the world to write the “National Review“also known as “the conservative bible.” Buckley deserves credit for finding the best American communist intellectuals and providing them a forum to spread their political philosophy across America.

Every political cult needs heroes and commie/conservatism has indeed been busy enshrining their heroes. What better a certification then the Presidential Medal of Freedom? It is much like the guy who knows it is true because he herd it on television. Authority often provides the “illusion of truth.” Certainly the highest civilian award in America provides commie/conservatism with the “illusion of truth” for its heroes. But with each communist intellectual the conservatives make a hero they add validity to the term commie/conservatives.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 07:11 pm
“Hell of a stretch” I don’t know who supplied the label but I must admit four years ago I might have said the same thing when I first encountered the fact that the “father” of the Modern Conservative Movement was a communist and a very proud of his communist past. I could have just blocked it and said “hell of stretch” but the difference between me and the guy who labeled my post is that I checked the facts and I did 1,000s of hours or research reading biographies and autobiographies and I found out that Jonathan Chait was 100% correct each and every communist he named was in fact an admitted communist and proud of it.

It was just a paragraph in Chait books where he makes the point the similarities between communism and Modern Conservatism.
_____________________________________________________
“Conservatism thus has a certainty about that rarely can be found in liberalism. In this way the ideological style of conservative discourse resembles that of communism much more than that of liberalism. It has an air of totalistic ideology.”

Jonathan Chait from is book “The Big Con”
_____________________________________________________
Then Chait goes on to list the communist intellectuals at the foundation of Modern Conservatism as an explanation of why Conservatism is a “totalistic” political philosophy.

Could the same people who “caught communism” be carriers of the communist “virus?” Did the communist intellectuals carry and impregnate the fledgling Modern Conservative philosophy with at least parts of the communist ideology? It seems Chait believes that the communist intellectuals influenced Modern Conservatism. How could the founding father of Conservatism not influence it?

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 05:03 am
The commie/conservatives need to create another category for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, because the awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom for Espionage to Whitaker Chambers was a travesty that could only have been done by a senile President. The new classification should be for the communist intellectuals who made outstanding contributions to both the communist political cause and the Modern Conservative Movement. Whitaker Chambers Presidential Medal of Freedom had nothing to do with espionage, he never spied for America, it was all about his contribution to the political cause of the Modern Conservative Movement. At the very least our commie/conservative friends should be honest with the American people.

When the new classification begins Whitaker Chambers and James Burnham should be reclassified as Outstanding American Communists, once this has been done most of the founding fathers of Modern Conservative Movement could be enshrined as genuine American heroes and role models. In 1935 Communists in Moscow realized that the American people simply didn’t identify with traditional communist heroes and realized that America would have to have its own communist heroes. The orders sent from Moscow to communists like the “father of Modern Conservative Movement,” Frank Meyer was to no longer push the traditional communist heroes and to create true American communist heroes. They were to claim the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as communist heroes to ‘capture the American culture.” They would claim the founding fathers political philosophy was really communist all along the term had just not been coined at the time.

Now the commie/conservative party has begun to enshrine their own communist heroes as winners of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. James Burnham was a trusted advisor to one of the most powerful communist in the world, Trotsky. Being a trusted Trotsky advisor must have been quite an honor for an American communist. You have got to give it to the commie/conservatives, most political movements would try and hide their political dirty laundry, not the commie/conservatives; they not only put the communists on public display but made National Heroes out of them. Was this what the 1935 orders from Moscow were all about? The Communists needed American based heroes, now they have them.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Jun, 2011 05:04 am
I spent a couple of decades building and driving race cars regionally the question was often whether to build a race car from the ground up or to buy an existing race car and modify it. It was cheaper to buy an existing race car and much less costly in both money and time of gather all the parts. Several years ago a news paper article stated that if you bought a Chevrolet a piece at a time it would cost you over $30,000 when a new one was selling for $4,000. This lesson was not lost on the communist intellectuals as they had to face the decision to take over an existing political movement or build one from the ground up.

The communist intellectuals decided it would be easier to take over the fledgling radical right’s political movement. After the communist intellectuals were able to work themselves into powerful positions in the Modern Conservative Movement they proceeded to purge the radical right from their own political movement. The communist successful purge of the John Birch Society from the Modern Conservative Movement eliminated their primary opponent.

James Burnham was an old hand at this maneuver, it is called a “French Turn,” as he and other Trotskyists had taken over the Socialist Party and claimed it for communism. The Socialist Party later became the Communist Party USA.
_____________________________________________________
“Backs proposed “French Turn,” a plan for Trotskists to enroll in the Socialist Party, break it up by worsening its factionalism, and then snare the more radical members for Trotskyism.’

From Daniel Kelly book “James Burnham: And the Struggle for the World”
_____________________________________________________
Burnham’s experience with the “French Turn” maneuver would later come in handy with the fledgling Modern Conservative Movement. When the founding fathers of Conservatism are listed it is the communist intellectuals who make up the founding fathers not John Birchers.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2011 05:04 am
The term “French Turn” got its name when the French Trotskyists took over of the French Socialist Party. James Burnham simply picked up the idea from France and applied them in America. A number of prominent communist joined the Socialist Party including Jay Lovestone and Trotsky himself became members. It is was simply easier for the communist to take over an existing political organization then start one from scratch as it would be easier to take control of the fledgling conservative movement a few decades later after the term communism had assumed a stigma in America after the cold war. Communist became a pariah, what were the life long communists to do?

Everything is seldom what it appears the art of illusion in politics is often as important as it is for the magician
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 05:02 am
We know for a fact that the communist intellectuals plotted to take over the American Socialist Party and did so successfully and Trotsky, one of the most famous Russian communists of all times then became a member of that organization. It is said that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. When the communist intellectuals infiltrated the fledgling Conservative Movement they became the leaders not the followers. Once before the communist intellectuals orchestrated “a plan for Trotskists to enroll in the Socialist Party, break it up by worsening its factionalism, and then snare the more radical members for Trotskyism.” This is exactly what happened when the communist intellectuals enrolled in the Modern Conservative Party and made the factionalism worse and purged the John Birch Society.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2011 03:18 pm
ZARDOZ...... I return to this thread every day to read your posts, good show. Are you familar with Max Shachtman's writings? Old style Marxists disdain his split with the Soviets, yet his internal criticism of the Socialist movement contains more value than those who criticized it from the outside. I think that Max was more of a Wobblie than he cared to admit. Which was an obvious affect of Shachtman recognizing that for "Socialism" to succeed it would have to adapt to the conditions of the culture.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/index.htm
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 11:21 am
@kuvasz,
Kuvasz

I am glad you enjoy the thread. I had a much larger readership on the local newspaper bulletin board before it folded but I had 10 years of writing everyday on the local boards. This board is a little complicated and it was hard for me to find the same page in the beginning.

I have not read anything by Max Shachtman yet; I have been primarily reading biography, autobiographies and some of the books written by the communist intellectuals who founded the Modern Conservative Movement.

Being an insider indeed provides one with the ability to see the short comings and criticize a political movement. The trouble is political ideologues tend to see the short comings as being in the process rather than the ideology. It is much easier to blame the people or the other political click for all the problems that a political ideology has. People often make the same type commitment to political ideology that they make to a religious ideology. Even when Christians were raising torture to an art form and burning people at the stake they never lost their faith. Even today many Christians would feel that burning people of other religions at the stake is justified, you have only to listen to their language as they dehumanize them as pagans, heathens, and heretic. Much like the language used to dehumanize the Japanese in WWII. It was easier to kill them if they were called “gooks.”

Political ideology is held to be infallible by its followers and indeed even divinely inspired in some cases. The problem is that followers of political ideological look at it as infallible finished product not as other human endeavors as a work in process. Where would we be if we had accepted Henry Ford Model A or the Wright plane as a finished product that could never be improved on? Indeed anyone that attempt to improve them would be burnt at the stake as a heretic. Political ideology, like a car or a plane, it is only a work of man, a starting point that can be improved. One extreme will never solve all of mankind’s problems, neither will the other. Once you commit to one extreme you alienate yourself off from other possible political solutions. What if America political ideology decided cars were wrong and horse and buggies were the only acceptable form of transportation? Not so far from reality, in fact some religious sect’s philosophy did exactly that. The difference is only in philosophy.

Political philosophy must be viewed as something that can be improved and not every political solution will apply to all problems.
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2011 01:12 pm
@Zardoz,
I believe that the trait of pragmatism, aka "just get it to work" is ingrained sufficiently in the American psyche that doctrinaire behavior is generally rejected as inefficient. But then again, that could be simply that such an attitude is a residual of how American's do business.

Towards that, and how businesses that cause/promote change are perhaps their worst enemies... try this essay on Conservativism.

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

Also, an essay on Shactman from Workers Liberty on his philosophical conundrum.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/8046

As a labor union advocate, Shactman's attempt to reconcile the reality of the American political landscape shows that while he readily can be proclaimed as a turncoat to Trotsky, nevertheless he held a quite different approach to winning the class war than someone like Stalinist Gus Hall... the former being both a more pragmatic proposal and less likely to produce a class system akin to Soviet bureacratic collectivism where Party members become the new aristocracy at the expense of the workers... which is why I call Shactman a closet Wobblie proclaiming "NO BOSSES EXCEPT OURSELVES!"
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 05:15 am
@kuvasz,
Kuvasz

America is about as partisan as it is ever been and political ideologues on the radical right are beaming their political ideology into every car, home and office in America. At no point in history have so many been targeted by so few, the influence political ideologues exert is multiplied millions of time with modern technology. One size of clothes does not fit everyone and one solution does not fit all problems. The solution is unique to the particular social or political problem; the more political philosophy assumes the structure of religious philosophy the faster we approach Armageddon. Political philosophy, especially on the right is getting more dogmatic by the day. The Modern Conservative Movement inherited the dogmatic stance of the communist intellectuals, like Whitaker Chambers and James Burnham, who advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government.

You can never be both a Jew and a Catholic, you have to chose, to follow one religious ideology or the other. The right advocates free market solutions but they are the first to advocate seizure of other’s property so the government can provide them entertainment. Baby Bush and his confederates used government power to confiscate private property for schools and highways to seize 100 acres of commercial surround the baseball stadium. This is how baby Bush made his fortune. In the town I grew up in a civic center was built with a tax levy. The town is primarily made up of the elderly and the poor. The civic centers has lost $100 of millions in its 35 year life, meanwhile the elderly home are seized and sold at auction Most of those who can afford a ticket to the Civic Center live in surrounding states and suburbs that aren’t taxed to operate the Civic Center. Government should not be able to tax to provide entertainment. Entertainment should be a free market activity without competition from government.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:32 am
@kuvasz,
Kuvasz

The essay makes several good points but it is important to distinguish Modern Conservatism from traditional Conservatism, the communist intellectuals made a point of distinguishing the two. Modern Conservatism, like communism, is a utopian philosophy, where communist believed that utopia could be achieved only through government control; Modern Conservatives believed that the free market was the only path to utopia.
Religious philosophy is founded on utopian concepts; the particular religious philosophy is marketed as the only true path to utopia. Neither communism nor modern conservatism are complex political philosophies they market a utopia on earth, very much like religious philosophies have done from the beginning of time.

The striking difference between Modern Conservatism and traditional conservatism is that traditional conservatives want to preserve the status quo, the modern Conservatives wanted to destroy it and remake America society in the image of their god “Greed.” Modern Conservatives wanted to eliminate Social Security, Workers Compensation and Unemployment even though they had become institutionalized by the time the Modern Conservative Movement came along. They didn’t want to preserve the status quo they wanted to destroy.

Most of the communist intellectuals who founded the Modern Conservative Movement advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government when they were still calling themselves communists; this is definitely not an endorsement of the status quo.

Can you imagine someone that publicly advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government be given the highest honor in the land, the Presidential Medal Freedom? Reagan could and did award James Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom with full knowledge that he was a communist an openly advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government. Modern Conservatism shares nothing with traditional conservatism but the name.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 05:33 am
@kuvasz,
Kuvasz

I am just now encountering Max Shachtman and James Burnham association in the Burnham biography. Shachtman was born in Russia and bought to America when he was a baby. Shachtman was just one of a group of radicals that Burnham worked with.
_____________________________________________________
“In the year of his marriage, Burnham became involved in another relationship that marked for life. For in 1934 he helped to negotiate a merger between the American Workers Party (AWP) and the Communist League of America (CLA), which led to him becoming a top lieutenant of Leon Trotsky.”

From the book James Burnham and the Struggle for the World”
_____________________________________________________
I am still reading this portion of the book and should find more of what Shachtman and Burnham had in common in the next few days.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jul, 2011 05:33 am
Most people have no idea how close the communist intellectuals came to succeeding in their quest to make America a communist country during the Great Depression. During the depth of the Great Depression it was widely believed by intellectuals that capitalism was a complete and total failure. That depression was caused by capitalism and that the depression effectively sounded the death knell for capitalism. Membership in the Communist party grew by a factor of 10 in just one four year period during the depression. We all know how fast a numeric progression that doubles each time grows but a numeric progression that is going at a factor of 10 would quickly overtake other political parties. The communist party was beginning to win some elected offices.

Did capitalism die during the Great Depression? Yes there is no doubt pure capitalism did in fact die during the Great Depression. When America spawns a third political party the best ideas are pirated by one of the existing two parties. The Democratic Party began to adopt some of the socialist policies such as Minimum wage, Social Security, Unemployment, Workers Compensation. When these programs became law it took the wind out of the communist party sails.

The old men on Supreme Court, firmly mired in the 19th century, quickly ruled that many of Roosevelt New Deal programs were unconstitutional. The 1933 minimum wage law that required a twenty-five cent minimum wage was struck down by the Supreme Court. It was later reinstated in 1938 as the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Supreme Court had to be drug kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

Many cling desperately to the illusion that this is a capitalistic economy when in fact our economy, like many cars now days, is hybrid, combining capitalistic ideas and socialist ideas.

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:27 am
I wonder how many Americans would like to turn the political clock back before the Great Depression to pure capitalism, no social security, no Medicare, no unemployment, no workers compensation, no minimum wage, no child labor laws Imagine what life would be like for the elderly with no social security and no Medicare. The law of jungle would prevail; every economic decision would be determined by unhindered greed. Talking about bringing back the good old days, the strong would survive, get wealthier and wealthier and use their vast wealth to virtually purchase the government to redistribute the wealth of America into their pockets, all the while pretending to be a victim of “redistribution of wealth.” But isn’t that much like what is happening today.

At the end of the day there is a very reliable way to check how the wealth of America has been redistributed. Today those who scream loudest about being victims of “redistribution of wealth” are accumulating wealth 13,000 times more than the bottom 99% of Americans. If you are accumulating wealth 13,000 times more than the bottom 99% of Americans, how is it that they are victims of redistribution of wealth?” That is like sitting down and counting the money $13,000 for me and $1 for you and then falling and screaming that you receiving a dollar made him a victim. Reminds of the old story where the guy returns to his car to find a meter maid writing him a ticket. He said he knew just what to do he fell to the ground and starting yelling police brutality a crowd soon gathered and overturned the meter maid three wheel buggy. This is what has happening in America the ungodly greedy fall to the ground yelling “redistribution of wealth” and angry crowd gathers and cuts the ungodly greedy’ taxes by 70%. America has been scammed by the ungodly greedy, they already hold all the cards and yet they play the” victim.”
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 06:03 am
One of the unmentionables in America is class warfare, and charges of redistribution of wealth, words are magic and the very image created in the mind by those words is poor armed with guns and knives storming the mansions of the ungodly greedy and taking their wealth by force. Words are considered magic because they not only have a meaning but create images in the mind. Certain words are smart bombs targeted directly at the emotional mind. Warfare or war when it explodes in the emotional mind opens a Pandora box of every image of war that we have accumulated over a lifetime. The primary purpose of emotional loaded language is to manipulate others, to gain access to the control lever of someone else emotional mind. The emotional mind process incoming information faster than the rational mind, a smart bomb exploding in the emotional mind is effective in setting up a road block that stops the information from being processed by the rational mind.

When the radical right starts using the term “class warfare” it creates a dissonance in our minds, the dark images start to roll through our mind, no one is in favor of war except to as a last resort for grievous problems. The difference between the conjured illusion s and the reality are striking.

Taxing the ungodly greedy at the same rate as the working man is considered class warfare. The ungodly greedy income comes primarily from capital gains which is now taxed at half the percentages wages are taxed. This in effect creates a two class system where the middle class pays 100% higher percentage on their wages than the ungodly greedy do manipulating stock prices. Speculators clean up bidding oil through the roof and getting a 50% tax break on their manipulation. But those who are losing are those who are being manipulated as the indelible images of death, guns and bombs dance in their head.

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2011 05:32 am
Watching the Sunday Morning talk shows the words of John Kenneth Galbraith came to mind, the ungodly greedy, the 5% who already possess 95% 0f the wealth, will fight to the death if even 1% of their wealth is threatened. But I am not so sure it is their death, but the death of America that it is possible. Make no doubt about the commie/conservatives have cut taxes for 30 years, when the hedge fund manager making over $5 billion a year pays income tax at half the percentage that his secretary does something is wrong. Do you think the hedge fund manager, who basically makes his money stealing from pension funds, manipulating stocks and selling them short, should get pay half as high a percentage of income tax, a tax that was levied only on “excess wealth?”

The commie/conservatives are ready to fight to the death of America for even a 1% tax hike on someone that is raping the country and making $5 billion for doing it. The difference between today and historical, is that the ungodly greedy had to fight by themselves and with those they could purchase, now the ungodly have an army of the brain dead to protect their vast fortunes, ideological useful idiots.

Should we raise the taxes on the ungodly greedy till at least they are required to pay what wage earners must pay or should we cut social security and Medicare? I know people that have $700 a month social security to live on, and a $110 of that is used to pay their Medicare. Sit down and see if you could live on $590 a month, rent, utilities, medical expenses, and food. How much of their $590 a month do you think it will take to pay the trillions in National Debt?
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 05:30 am
To solve any problem you must first find the correct paradigm. If you have the wrong paradigm you will never find a solution. The most important accomplishment of the commie/conservative movement was not the war with Iraq it was shifting the paradigm on greed. America became a super power because it believed as most major religious philosophies, greed was one of the seven deadly sins. In fact in 1913 a sin tax was placed on excess greed, it was called an “income tax.” The income taxed only “excess wealth” ordinary wage earner’s income was not taxed, only those making over $80,000 a year in today’s dollars paid the tax on “excess wealth.” Now since the commie/conservatives shifted the paradigm few if any people know that income tax was intended to tax only excess wealth.

In our lifetime the income tax on the ungodly greedy was cut from 93% to 15%, an unbelievable 84% cut. Reagan shifted the paradigm that greed was not a sickness but a starting point, that all wealth should flow from the ungodly greedy, in an economic theory called “Trickle Down Economics.” If you could make the American people believe that all wealth ultimately flowed from the ungodly greedy then you could make a case to cut the taxes on the ungodly greedy 84% in a few decades, after all putting more money into the hands of the ungodly greedy would make more money available to the rest of Americans.

Trickle Down Economics is a failed economic theory, after 30 years of funneling more of America’s wealth into the pockets of the ungodly greedy but the vast majority American working couples now work 32 more hours a week and make less in inflation adjusted dollars than their fathers did working by themselves. The middle class has made less 29 out of the 30 years, middle class income increased during one year during Clinton’s term.

The economic theory is dead but the paradigm is alive and well, as long as the paradigm survives we will act as it is valid. The commie/conservatives are ready to fight to the death of America to make sure that not even 1% of that 84% tax cut the ungodly greedy is taken away, not even with the country going down the tube. America can make sacrifices but the ungodly greedy will never make any sacrifices till they end up on a spit be being barbequed in their back yard. Greedy is a sickness that will kill everything we have built in America.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2011 05:33 am
Most of the American communist like Whitaker Chambers and James Burnham lie rotting in their graves their ambition of violent overthrow of the United States government was not achieved in their lifetime. Can their objective still be achieved by those that follow their political ideology, those in the Modern Conservative Movement? The communists bequeathed a rigid, dogmatic political ideological to the Modern Conservative Movement. At no point in in history has this rigid, dogmatic political ideology been more obvious than today.

It is obvious political ideologies take root and grow in the emotional mind, not the rational mind. The modern day political descendants of the American communists cling desperately to the political ideological style of their communist forefathers. Now the latter day descendants of the communist’s forefathers have made tax cuts for the ungodly greedy the primary dogmatic focus of their political ideology. Not one more penny of taxes on the ungodly greedy who have seen their income tax, a tax that was intended to tax excess wealth, cut by a unbelievable 84% while the middle class watched their payroll taxes steadily increase. As America approaches the greatest financial crisis in its history the republicans insist that the rich contribute not one red cent extra to help. The justification for the massive Bush tax cuts was that Clinton had balanced the budget and the people should get their money back, of course it was the ungodly taxes that were cut in half by Bush. Next Bush declared a $3 trillion war on Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 911, the first American war in history to be waged on credit but he continued to cut the taxes on the ungodly greedy after the wars were in full swing.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2011 05:31 am
It has happened much sooner than most expected, on this morning news a study showed that America is no longer considered the world’s super power either economically or militarily. China is now considered the world’s super power both militarily and economically. It has happened to every economic and military super power since the beginning of time as soon as Greedism (conservatism) becomes the prevailing political ideology of a super power, failure is only a matter of time. “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” Lottery winner economics is extremely appealing to many because they can live vicariously imagining that they will be the lottery winner but like all lotteries there are millions of losers for every winner. Political policies that concentrate the wealth of a country into the hands of a tiny few only serve to bundle America’s wealth and make it much easier to export that wealth to foreign countries.

This is not theory this is simply history, the ungodly greedy have one reason and one reason only to exist, greed. They will invest their money (America’s wealth) where they get the largest return, China for instance. Once enough of a super power wealth is exported to foreign countries the ungodly greedy use their economic power to buy the government and rob the middle class. While lottery winner economics is so appealing to some, a country based on equity, where the economic structure is reflected by those who actually create the wealth instead of those who are able to gain economic advantage by political payoff. A strong middle class that that has an equitable share of a country wealth is necessary for any super power to survive.

America may just be the shortest lived super power in history. The world dumbest generation not only sat idly by and watched as the ungodly greedy made off with the pensions of this generation they helped them adopting the political ideology of the ungodly greedy. Now as America heart has stopped the commie/conservatives in Washington are doing everything in their power to make sure America cannot be economically resuscitated. It is only fitting that the ideological descendants of the communist intellectuals should be instrumental in passing America’s super power status to China, a communist country.
More tax cuts for the ungodly greedy anyone?

0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  4  
Reply Fri 15 Jul, 2011 05:35 am
The republicans continue to tell the public that tax cuts for the ungodly greedy create jobs; the only question is which country do they create jobs? The greatest economic expansion in America history occurred during the late 40s and 50s when the tax rate on the ungodly greedy was 93%. In the 1950s fifty-one percent of American jobs were in manufacturing. Now under the massive tax cuts America has only 13% of Americans jobs are in manufacturing. Statistics don’t lie, when the ungodly greedy’ tax rate was 93% to keep greed under control America prospered but after 30 years of conservative philosophy that decide that greed was the answer to ever question, after the tax rate on the ungodly greedy was cut to 28% manufacturing jobs in America fell to just 13% the lowest since the industrial revolution.

The next time one of your red neck right friends tell you about all the jobs lower taxes on the ungodly greed created, ask him weather they are at Wal-Mart or McDonalds. Of course the finical industry jobs now make up 20% of American jobs, those are the ones created by the massive national debt run up by granting massive tax cuts for the ungodly greedy and for a $3 trillion dollar elective war.

When a country is at war the economy roars to feed the war machine but in America by the end of Baby Bush’s term the economy collapsed while wars raged. Wars create jobs to supply the armies with war materials, why did America economy collapse? The massive tax cuts took place before the wars started and more tax cuts were given while the wars were underway. Baby Bush decided not to pay his way but to borrow all the money?

Not one republican in congress advocated a balanced budget amendment when massive tax cuts were given to the ungodly greedy, I wonder why not? But now the ungodly can not be asked to give back one red cent in those massive tax cuts.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/20/2018 at 02:28:49