2016 Republican Primary

[JohnStOnge]

I really don't get why people try to say Republicans are Fascists when the whole point of Fascism is central government control especially under a dictator and Republicans are against central government control. They want to disperse power away from the central government. You can disagree with them but it makes NO sense at all to cast them as Fascists.

Well, except for Trump. He may indeed be a Fascist. It's hard to tell so far because he is so incoherent that you can't tell what the hell his core philosophy is.

[JohnStOnge]

You know one thing I thought about today is that Trump's background including public statements he's made constitute a target rich environment for the Democrats should he get the nomination. For instance the thing where he mocked a guy with cerebral palsy then pretty obviously lied about what he was doing when he was called on it. I can see a commercial on that now and I'm pretty sure that if I'm thinking of it the Democrats will think of it. Nice video of him publicly mocking the disabled guy followed by heart rending stuff on people with disabilities.

And of course there's the John McCain thing and all the stuff he said denigrating soldiers who get captured during war. I can see it now. Video of him saying stuff like that followed by things like pictures associated with the Bataan Death March. Something like that. Pretty easy to illustrate the absurdity of his comments in that situation. Again, I'm pretty sure that if I can think of stuff like that the Democrats will think of it.

The guy is going to get crushed if he gets the general election. The idiot dunce robots supporting him in the primary right now might not be affected by efforts to depict the reality of what he is. And maybe Republicans are holding back because they are holding out hope of getting the support of those idiot dunces themselves. But the Democrats are not going to have that problem. They're going to correctly figure that they're not going to get votes from those idiots and write them off. They are going to crucify him. As I think I've said before they will have no problem depicting him as a creepy buffoon who has no clue because that's what he is and there is plenty of video out there showing it.

[kalm]

I really don't get why people try to say Republicans are Fascists when the whole point of Fascism is central government control especially under a dictator and Republicans are against central government control. They want to disperse power away from the central government. You can disagree with them but it makes NO sense at all to cast them as Fascists.

Well, except for Trump. He may indeed be a Fascist. It's hard to tell so far because he is so incoherent that you can't tell what the hell his core philosophy is.

Ummm...it might have something to do with nationalism/nativism and corporatism.

And yes, Democrats are guilty of corporatism too.

[JohnStOnge]

Ummm...it might have something to do with nationalism/nativism and corporatism.

And yes, Democrats are guilty of corporatism too.

Fascism is not nationalism, nativism, or corporatism. We've been through the quoting of definitions from Miriam Webster before. And in this case if we do it the simple definition is:

a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

Then in the full definition you have:

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

Any way you look at it it means a strong autocratic government and the Republicans are clearly AGAINST that. In fact I think the Democrats are CLOSER to being in favor of that than the Republicans are. Not that they're THERE by any means. But they at least believe in a strong central government while the Republicans believe in that less so.

[kalm]

Ummm...it might have something to do with nationalism/nativism and corporatism.

And yes, Democrats are guilty of corporatism too.

Fascism is not nationalism, nativism, or corporatism. We've been through the quoting of definitions from Miriam Webster before. And in this case if we do it the simple definition is:

a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

Then in the full definition you have:

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

Any way you look at it it means a strong autocratic government and the Republicans are clearly AGAINST that. In fact I think the Democrats are CLOSER to being in favor of that than the Republicans are. Not that they're THERE by any means. But they at least believe in a strong central government while the Republicans believe in that less so.

And here's the Oxford Dictuonary version:


fascism
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: fas·cism
Pronunciation: /ˈfaSHˌizəm/
(also Fascism)
Definition of fascism in English:
noun

1An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.1(In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
EXAMPLE SENTENCES
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

You lose. Sorry.

[JohnStOnge]

You lose. Sorry.

No I don't. Your own definitions don't support calling the Republicans "Fascists." There's one line in there about "or intolerant." But it's pretty clear that the idea of Fascism is strong, authoritarian central government and the Republicans clearly are not for that. As far as the "intolerant" thing goes either of the major political parties in the United States might be viewed as "intolerant" of certain things.

When you look at definitions of "Fascism" the words "autocratic" and "authoritarian" appear over and over again and the Republicans clearly aren't in favor of authoritarian and/or autocratic government. As I said: The Democrats are CLOSER to being in favor of that than the Republicans are.

[kalm]

You lose. Sorry.

No I don't. Your own definitions don't support calling the Republicans "Fascists." There's one line in there about "or intolerant." But it's pretty clear that the idea of Fascism is strong, authoritarian central government and the Republicans clearly are not for that. As far as the "intolerant" thing goes either of the major political parties in the United States might be viewed as "intolerant" of certain things.

When you look at definitions of "Fascism" the words "autocratic" and "authoritarian" appear over and over again and the Republicans clearly aren't in favor of authoritarian and/or autocratic government. As I said: The Democrats are CLOSER to being in favor of that than the Republicans are.

Fascism came to prominence in Europe as a rejection of liberalism and socialism. Think Mussolini and Franco. Everyone considers them right wing except you.

Again you can make a case for fascistic tendencies coming from both sides in the modern context, but it's attachment to right wing politics is well founded. '

You still lose. Sorry.

[Ibanez]

Hitler... I mean Trump Youth.

Well played.

[Ibanez]

You lose. Sorry.

No I don't. Your own definitions don't support calling the Republicans "Fascists." There's one line in there about "or intolerant." But it's pretty clear that the idea of Fascism is strong, authoritarian central government and the Republicans clearly are not for that. As far as the "intolerant" thing goes either of the major political parties in the United States might be viewed as "intolerant" of certain things.

When you look at definitions of "Fascism" the words "autocratic" and "authoritarian" appear over and over again and the Republicans clearly aren't in favor of authoritarian and/or autocratic government. As I said: The Democrats are CLOSER to being in favor of that than the Republicans are.

You said fascism isn't a nativist or nationalist ideology. That's wrong with 2 prime examples being Germany and Italy in the 1920s-1940s.

[kalm]

That's what I don't get - Trump's been going on and on about jacking up tariffs on everybody for goods coming into this country, and demanding that other countries drop their tariffs on American goods going to those countries. Because we're America. That's almost verbatim the economic principle that kalmie has been pushing on this site for the past two years. So why isn't kalmie campaigning hard for the Donald? Or is he and he's just not owning up to it???

Well he said the tariff with a caveat- IF China continues to manipulate their currency. Think he stated their manipulation is currently the equivalent to about a 45% tariff on US goods..Is that true? I have no idea.

I just listened to this part of the debate and his point is to force (leverage) China into playing fair to protect our industries.

Trump absolutely bitch slapped Jeb with this. He said 'the problem with youre Jeb is that your weak' and Jeb just wilted.



Even if Trump is wrong, he still scores the point. This is why he will be tough to beat.

[JohnStOnge]

Fascism came to prominence in Europe as a rejection of liberalism and socialism. Think Mussolini and Franco. Everyone considers them right wing except you.

Again you can make a case for fascistic tendencies coming from both sides in the modern context, but it's attachment to right wing politics is well founded. '

You still lose. Sorry.

Kalm, there is no way the Republican Party supports anything like a the model represented by Mussolini and Franco. One of the major differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States is that the Democrats tend to favor greater consolidation of power in the central national government and the Republicans tend to favor decentralizing power. The Republicans are the "minimize centralized power" major Party in this country. There is no WAY the Republican Party philosophy of government is consistent with the concept of fascism and it's ridiculous to say that it is. I mean come ON man!

[JohnStOnge]

This is just one source but at least you can see that someone agrees with me:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a quote:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.

Another:

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms.

Now, seriously, who does that sound more like when we look at the two major political parties in theUnited States today? For sure it doesn't sound more like the Republicans. I frankly think it sounds more like what we call the "left" in this country than what we call the "right."

But in any case it sure doesn't sound like what the Republican Party wants at ALL.

[kalm]

Fascism came to prominence in Europe as a rejection of liberalism and socialism. Think Mussolini and Franco. Everyone considers them right wing except you.

Again you can make a case for fascistic tendencies coming from both sides in the modern context, but it's attachment to right wing politics is well founded. '

You still lose. Sorry.

Kalm, there is no way the Republican Party supports anything like a the model represented by Mussolini and Franco. One of the major differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States is that the Democrats tend to favor greater consolidation of power in the central national government and the Republicans tend to favor decentralizing power. The Republicans are the "minimize centralized power" major Party in this country. There is no WAY the Republican Party philosophy of government is consistent with the concept of fascism and it's ridiculous to say that it is. I mean come ON man!

What you're saying is cute in theory.

Of course the mistake you make is failing to acknowledge that centralized power can come from the private sector with government used as the tool to wield it. A glaring example is the position of the too big to fail banks which stacked the financial deck through deregulation and the regulatory capture of the SEC. In both instances, they got (and bought) government to work for them. You can't tell me that banking power in the United States hasn't become centralized.

Christ, man, just look at all the campaign spending. Do you think it's all driven by pure politics and has nothing to do with benefiting each donors market share? Do the Kochs (greatest Republcians on earth) spend billions in the hopes and belief that everyone can equal their success?

And what do you think Teddy Roosevelt (who left the Republican Party) was fighting against? The economic freedom and liberty of the large trusts?

You're either extraordinarily naive on this or intellectually dishonest.

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."

- Bennito Mussolini
The Doctrine of Fascism

The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.
--Thomas Jefferson

As I've often conceded, authoritarianism/centralized power can come from both sides and there are countless examples of it coming from yours.

You're still losing, John. Badly.

[kalm]

This is just one source but at least you can see that someone agrees with me:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a quote:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.

Another:

Under crony capitalism, the state, through private cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms.

Now, seriously, who does that sound more like when we look at the two major political parties in theUnited States today? For sure it doesn't sound more like the Republicans. I frankly think it sounds more like what we call the "left" in this country than what we call the "right."

But in any case it sure doesn't sound like what the Republican Party wants at ALL.

Fixed the first quote for ya. (See how the line between fascism and capitalism gets blurred?)

Here's a reply to the second quote...

„Fascism is capitalism in decay.“
--Vladimir Lenin

Nice to see you've switched from Fresca to Kool-aid with your Everclear.

[CAA Flagship]

kalm,
You have two realistic choices for President: Conks or Donks.
Pick one.

[kalm]

kalm,
You have two realistic choices for President: Conks or Donks.
Pick one.

NO!

Will Say and Post Anything I Want About Barack Obama
Like This Page · January 12, 2013 ·


READ, WEEP, PRINT AND KEEP!

This should be on the front page of every newspaper.


Charley Reese's Final column!

A very interesting column. COMPLETELY NEUTRAL.
Be sure to Read the Poem at the end..

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

[CID1990]

This is just one source but at least you can see that someone agrees with me:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a quote:



Another:



Now, seriously, who does that sound more like when we look at the two major political parties in theUnited States today? For sure it doesn't sound more like the Republicans. I frankly think it sounds more like what we call the "left" in this country than what we call the "right."

But in any case it sure doesn't sound like what the Republican Party wants at ALL.

Fixed the first quote for ya. (See how the line between fascism and capitalism gets blurred?)

Here's a reply to the second quote...

„Fascism is capitalism in decay.“
--Vladimir Lenin

Nice to see you've switched from Fresca to Kool-aid with your Everclear.

I love the Lenin quote for its irony, given that governments on the extreme right and extreme left over history have been almost identical in terms of their treatment of the citizenry as chattel.

Ideological arguments aside, there was almost no daylight between the prewar Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The bottom line is that both extremes have to be forced on the populace. The reason I don't see Trump as a Fascist is because in spite of his bluster, there is little he would be able to do to dismantle any of our democratic institutions in order to achieve what would be considered a true Fascist state. The whole claim is silly. I also don't think Bernie Sanders would be able to take us any further in the other direction. The presidency of Barack Obama has convinced me that for the most part (with the occasional hiccup) our system of checks and balances does in fact work.

[kalm]

Fixed the first quote for ya. (See how the line between fascism and capitalism gets blurred?)

Here's a reply to the second quote...



Nice to see you've switched from Fresca to Kool-aid with your Everclear.

I love the Lenin quote for its irony, given that governments on the extreme right and extreme left over history have been almost identical in terms of their treatment of the citizenry as chattel.

Ideological arguments aside, there was almost no daylight between the prewar Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The bottom line is that both extremes have to be forced on the populace. The reason I don't see Trump as a Fascist is because in spite of his bluster, there is little he would be able to do to dismantle any of our democratic institutions in order to achieve what would be considered a true Fascist state. The whole claim is silly. I also don't think Bernie Sanders would be able to take us any further in the other direction. The presidency of Barack Obama has convinced me that for the most part (with the occasional hiccup) our system of checks and balances does in fact work.

Agree. That's why I might vote for Trump. He might stir the pot a little (which is sorely needed) but he's full of shit on much of this stuff, and I don't see him driving us over the cliff.

[UNI88]

I love the Lenin quote for its irony, given that governments on the extreme right and extreme left over history have been almost identical in terms of their treatment of the citizenry as chattel.

Ideological arguments aside, there was almost no daylight between the prewar Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The bottom line is that both extremes have to be forced on the populace. The reason I don't see Trump as a Fascist is because in spite of his bluster, there is little he would be able to do to dismantle any of our democratic institutions in order to achieve what would be considered a true Fascist state. The whole claim is silly. I also don't think Bernie Sanders would be able to take us any further in the other direction. The presidency of Barack Obama has convinced me that for the most part (with the occasional hiccup) our system of checks and balances does in fact work.

I've often said that the range of political ideology is a circle not a straight line so I'm with CID on this one.

I'm also with him on our system of checks and balances but I would agree with John that if Trump were able he would push for more power and he's egomaniacal enough to go the Fascist route. I don't see it happening but did the people of Wehrmacht Germany see Hitler happening?

Kalm has a valid argument on the centralization of economic power by corporate America.

John is also only looking at the fiscal side of the argument while ignoring the social side. Yes Democrats want to consolidate fiscal power and control the economy so they can make everything "right" but Republicans want to do the same with social issues (marijuana legalization, gay marriage, abortion, etc.). They're two sides of the same coin.

[SDHornet]

I love the Lenin quote for its irony, given that governments on the extreme right and extreme left over history have been almost identical in terms of their treatment of the citizenry as chattel.

Ideological arguments aside, there was almost no daylight between the prewar Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The bottom line is that both extremes have to be forced on the populace. The reason I don't see Trump as a Fascist is because in spite of his bluster, there is little he would be able to do to dismantle any of our democratic institutions in order to achieve what would be considered a true Fascist state. The whole claim is silly. I also don't think Bernie Sanders would be able to take us any further in the other direction. The presidency of Barack Obama has convinced me that for the most part (with the occasional hiccup) our system of checks and balances does in fact work.

I've often said that the range of political ideology is a circle not a straight line so I'm with CID on this one.

I'm also with him on our system of checks and balances but I would agree with John that if Trump were able he would push for more power and he's egomaniacal enough to go the Fascist route. I don't see it happening but did the people of Wehrmacht Germany see Hitler happening?

Kalm has a valid argument on the centralization of economic power by corporate America.

John is also only looking at the fiscal side of the argument while ignoring the social side. Yes Democrats want to consolidate fiscal power and control the economy so they can make everything "right" but Republicans want to do the same with social issues (marijuana legalization, gay marriage, abortion, etc.). They're two sides of the same coin.

Dear God thank you for the cliff notes version of what was going on the last few pages of this thread. I don't bother to read any of JSO's posts but figured kalm was mud stomping him again.

I missed the last debate, but Trump bitch slapping jeb again? I think I'll have to youtube the last debate. jeb is always good for a laugh.

[BDKJMU]

I love the Lenin quote for its irony, given that governments on the extreme right and extreme left over history have been almost identical in terms of their treatment of the citizenry as chattel.

Ideological arguments aside, there was almost no daylight between the prewar Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The bottom line is that both extremes have to be forced on the populace. The reason I don't see Trump as a Fascist is because in spite of his bluster, there is little he would be able to do to dismantle any of our democratic institutions in order to achieve what would be considered a true Fascist state. The whole claim is silly. I also don't think Bernie Sanders would be able to take us any further in the other direction. The presidency of Barack Obama has convinced me that for the most part (with the occasional hiccup) our system of checks and balances does in fact work.

I've often said that the range of political ideology is a circle not a straight line so I'm with CID on this one.

I'm also with him on our system of checks and balances but I would agree with John that if Trump were able he would push for more power and he's egomaniacal enough to go the Fascist route. I don't see it happening but did the people of Wehrmacht Germany see Hitler happening?

Kalm has a valid argument on the centralization of economic power by corporate America.

John is also only looking at the fiscal side of the argument while ignoring the social side. Yes Democrats want to consolidate fiscal power and control the economy so they can make everything "right" but Republicans want to do the same with social issues (marijuana legalization, gay marriage, abortion, etc.). They're two sides of the same coin.

Weimar

[BDKJMU]

Edit: Moved to debate thread...

[UNI88]

I'm also with him on our system of checks and balances but I would agree with John that if Trump were able he would push for more power and he's egomaniacal enough to go the Fascist route. I don't see it happening but did the people of Wehrmacht Germany see Hitler happening?

Weimar[/quote]

Good catch.

[CAA Flagship]

kalm,
You have two realistic choices for President: Conks or Donks.
Pick one.

NO!

Will Say and Post Anything I Want About Barack Obama
Like This Page · January 12, 2013 ·


READ, WEEP, PRINT AND KEEP!

This should be on the front page of every newspaper.


Charley Reese's Final column!

A very interesting column. COMPLETELY NEUTRAL.
Be sure to Read the Poem at the end..

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.

Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Another blowhard pointing out the obvious.
BooHoo, life isn't perfect.

Now tell me where in that writing did it explain that you have another choice that has a realistic chance of being the next POTUS?

[kalm]

NO!

Another blowhard pointing out the obvious.
BooHoo, life isn't perfect.

Now tell me where in that writing did it explain that you have another choice that has a realistic chance of being the next POTUS?

I don't think it did. It just points out that by voting for incumbents and perhaps either of the two parties, you really have nothing to bitch about.

So quit yer bitchin!