Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: The shoes are us (Score 1) 4

by PopeRatzo (#47446285) Attached to: 1k words

Even knowing that, Republicans will vote for Republicans and Democrats for Democrats and Libertarians for people who are not libertarian. Even knowing they're just putting the yin and yang into those crushing boots, they will continue to believe if they could only defeat other leg, once and for all, their lives would be glorious.

The one thing a Libertarian cartoonist won't tell you though, is if you follow those boots up to the legs, and the legs up to the pockets and the pockets up to the head, you will find the corporate wizard pulling the levers, whispering, "God...guns...gay rights...family values...free markets...climate change...Sarah Palin...Michael Moore...liebruls...wingnuts..." into the megaphone. He's a wizened little man, looks a lot like Sheldon Adleson, in fact, whose own legs have withered. He's the subject of the Picture of Dorian Gray. Call it, "The Picture of John Galt". Corrupt, suppurating and certain of his position among The Elect. Plump and parasitic.

It's so easy to blame team red or team blue, but only because The Commissioner likes to keep our attention focused on the heels and away from the head.

Comment: Re:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (Score 1) 323

by PopeRatzo (#47445493) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

History is not going to be kind to the only liberal democracy in the middle east?

That's correct. A "liberal" democracy the same way South Africa was a "liberal democracy" during apartheid.

Now that I think about it, the Weimar Republic was also a "liberal democracy", as was the United States during the genocide of Native Americans and it's promotion of slavery.

Atrocity in a country that is otherwise supposedly "enlightened" stands out more, doesn't it? And make no mistake: the current government of Israel is perpetrating an atrocity right this minute.

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 439

... Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Thanks for confirming that you asked Lonny Eachus to post the file, because you know him and are possibly his friend. Why are you so ambiguous and evasive about your friendship with Lonny Eachus? It almost sounds like you're ashamed to be his friend. As I've pointed out, you and Lonny Eachus have so much in common that you're clearly soulmates.

Strangely, Lonny Eachus seems to feel the same way about Jane. After I debunked Lonny's claim that dark energy is dead, Lonny went on an evasive rant that seems almost identical to Jane's comments above. Why would Lonny Eachus be ashamed of being friends with Jane, when they have so much in common?

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 1) 258

Oh, you might find this little essay interesting. It's about reducing tariffs when there is no "emergency". It discusses why the benefit of tariffs is not that they help us out of a tough spot, but that they create stability for wage-earners, which is exactly what our leaders have been trying to destroy for the past 30 years.

Tariffs are just one part of a sound trade policy.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com...

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 1) 258

There were extreme situations extant at the time necessitating a tariff. And by extreme situations; I don't mean fiscal irresponsibility. I mean: there was no such thing as an income tax; the new government needed a bit of money to get on its feet, and the tarrifs were low and not a significant barrier.

Whatever the reason, they still boosted domestic production and economic growth.

According to the neoliberal free-trade types, tariffs can only have the opposite effect. It's quite possible that our fiscal irresponsibility is tied to our not having tariffs and other sound trade policies in effect.

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 1) 258

What people who advocate tariffs don't realize is that imports and domestic production rise and fall very closely with one another.

Just like the number of people who drown in swimming pools rise and fall very closely with the number of movies that Nicholas Cage appeared in. My having to pee rises sharply when the sun comes up. Does that mean sunlight makes me pee?

What people who advocate tariffs don't realize is that imports and domestic production rise and fall very closely with one another.

Tell that to the 1950s and 1960s.

The rich that are negatively affected by tariffs are barely affected at all by them.

It's not about affecting the rich. It's not about class warfare. It's about sound domestic industrial and trade policies. It's about what's best for people. And believe it or not (I'm sure you don't) but the levels people doing well do not rise and fall with how profitable corporations are, or with imports. But they do with tariffs.

The first treasurer of the US, Alexander Hamilton knew it. Abraham Lincoln new it. So did Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy LBJ and Nixon. We had high tariffs in place for the greatest periods of economic growth. Real growth, not the bubble economies of Reagan and Clinton, which only made people poorer. What they put into place are negative tariffs which pump up profits and stock price at the expense of peoples' incomes and standard of living. And Barack Obama is the champ at this supply-side game. Pumping money to banks without strings attached so that stock prices soar (it's the only place to put your money). Reagan did pretty much the same thing by using executive action to kill the Taft Harley Act (and eventually, Glass-Steagall a decade later). NAFTA and CAFTA and TPP and TISA are all designed to remove tariffs and "unshackle capital" and they're all designed to redistribute wealth upwards. It's why they exist.

Unfortunately, the supply siders that followed Reagan (every president since 1980) do not know it, and we've been in decline ever since. That's why it kills me that so many liberals who hated Ronald Reagan think Barack Obama is the bee's knees. They both play for the same team.

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 1) 258

If you look at the history of tariff's in the US, from the beginning right up until Ronald Reagan virtually opened up America's asshole for a good pounding, in order to enrich a handful of rich banks and corporations, tariffs were always about protecting workers.

Subsidies are the opposite of tariffs, though I give you credit for trying to slip that one by us. It shows you're willing to inject a lie into an argument in order to gain a point. Subsidies only raise prices. They are always pro-corporate and anti-worker. Tariffs on the other hand are part of an industrial policy that helps boost wages. It includes greater pricing power for labor, strict (and swift) enforcement of anti-trust laws, and a minimum wage at least at 1960's levels (which would be over $20/hr in today's dollars). If we had a sensible domestic policy, ADM would have been broken up long ago.

The post-Carter experiment with "free trade" has been nothing but a disaster for Americans. TVs are cheaper, of course, but wages are down, two parents have to work when it used to be one, and profits flow off-shore. So now, with the workforce puffed up by the decline in incomes due to Reaganomics, we are told that things are bad because workforce participation is down, even though it's still above 1960's levels. The use of this argument shows just how willing the corporatist elite are to play a very long game. Convince people that low-wage workers and the unemployed and the middle class have it "too good" while trying to argue that we need to "unshackle" the Fortune 500.

Where did you get the notion that tariffs are "pro-corporate"? Corporations don't have nationalities. They are not people, my friend. How long do you expect Americans to be beaten up by Ronald Reagan's policies before you're ready to admit they're a failure?

Comment: Re: Not France vs US (Score 1) 258

Trying not to "piss off the law makers" simply caters to their silly protectionist rackets that are doomed to fail business and consumers in the long run.

Except, that's not what happens.

The first laws passed by the First United States Congress after the ratification of the constitution were tariffs. People have a right to protect their homes. "free markets" are a scam for redistribution of wealth upward.

Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's the trouble with time travel, you never can tell." -- Doctor Who, "Androids of Tara"

Working...