President Mitt Romney : If voters had known

[Harte]

Harte: To what extent does the phrase "Invest in America" relate to your post #196 above?

I'm no economist, nor an economist's son, but it appears to me that economics, and all that pertains thereto (captital, valuation, taxation, interest, etc.) is established, controlled, modified and monitored by the economic elite (read: "the rich") of any given political economy. I believe this would pertain equally to the pharaohs of ancient Egypt as to the moguls of modern-day Wall Street. So if the economic elite control any given economy, what's the point of the kind of slicing and dicing and parsing of language that implies these are just good ol' boys sittin' 'round the pickle barrel and playin' by the rules? They change the rules--routinely--to benefit themselves. When the disparities become intolerable for too many people, or for a counter-elite (read Lenin, Mao, the Sandinistas), revolution beckons.

Please advise me if there is something askew with the generalities of this macro-analysis, since I truly am unlearned in economics.

My post was about tax credits, not who controls the economy. My earlier point was that these are the rules and nobody is bending them.

Changing them? No doubt.

I believe in a free economy, however. If people are revolting (another one!) over elites controlling the economy, they'd do well to look out for whatever system they decide to replace it with.

After all, how did Lenin, Mao and the Sandinistas do?

I'd rather have people with money to lose "in charge" of the economy than people willing to slaughter hundreds of thousands of citizens for some principle (third pun.)

Harte

[regeneratia]

What the VA is doing to the vets just now is what we will see from Obama care. The VA is doing some really, really horrible manipulations of truth and reality.

The future of Obama care will go by the wayside, will not progress much in the next couple of years. In 2016, we will see it as a major issue again,.

While I like a lot of your posts, the last thing I want to do, to ever do, is run into the safe arms of some unknown man.

New Poll reveals the obvious. It appears Team Obama made a political decision: Go Ahead and Lie.

When the truth comes out about NOT being able to keep your health care plan or doctor, just blame

the insurance companies or try to change the subject. ( Kill The Filibuster Rule in the senate !)

The NEW POLL shows that women would have run into the safe arms of President Mitt Romney.

http://dailycaller.c...would-have-won/

----------

Fox News George Will calls ObamaCare, Nuclear Option " Cynical Lawlessness ".

- What is going on is the fulfillment of a progressive dream that is 100 years old. -

Edited December 9, 2013 by regeneratia

[DeWitz]

My post was about tax credits, not who controls the economy. My earlier point was that these are the rules and nobody is bending them.

Changing them? No doubt.

I believe in a free economy, however. If people are revolting (another one!) over elites controlling the economy, they'd do well to look out for whatever system they decide to replace it with.

After all, how did Lenin, Mao and the Sandinistas do?

I'd rather have people with money to lose "in charge" of the economy than people willing to slaughter hundreds of thousands of citizens for some principle (third pun.)

Harte

My post was about tax credits, not who controls the economy. My earlier point was that these are the rules and nobody is bending them.

Changing them? No doubt.

I believe in a free economy, however. If people are revolting (another one!) over elites controlling the economy, they'd do well to look out for whatever system they decide to replace it with.

After all, how did Lenin, Mao and the Sandinistas do?

I'd rather have people with money to lose "in charge" of the economy than people willing to slaughter hundreds of thousands of citizens for some principle (third pun.)

Harte

Thanks for that clarification. It can be argued that the Sandinistas have done remarkably well, given that the Reagan Administration, defying the Boland Amendment of the US Congress and international law in general, did his Gipper-best to destroy their revolution with expatriate terrorists (the 'Contras') and CIA lackeys and thugs. The Sandinistas continue to be the moving force in Nicaragua's political-economy and culture by dint of their re-establishment of democratic elections. Their militant leader Daniel Ortega was recently re-elected to the presidency there in a free, contested constitutional election. Their economy, from the triumph of the 1979 overthrow of butcher Somoza and his violent, corrupt 3-generation dynasty, has been a melange of free market principles in a socialist democracy. Although continuing to be one of the world's poorest countries in per capita income, Nicaragua now enjoys unprecedented gains in literacy, small business starts, freedom of the press, religious freedom and health care.

In fact, the US closely reflects the former discrepancies between rich and poor which fueled Sandino's original rebellion (of the 1930's, thwarting the US Marines) and inspired the successful and ongoing revolution of the 1960's-70's. Under hard sanctions, the illegal invasions by mercenary reactionaries and under threat of invasion by the 'Yanqui' aggressor in Washington, Nicaragua survived--and thrived. The greatest economic and military Goliath in the world, the USA, couldn't eradicate Sandino's dream.

That's how the Sandinistas have done--and continue to do.

Edited December 9, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[Harte]

Why the notable absence of an update on Lenin and Mao? LOL

Harte

[DeWitz]

Why the notable absence of an update on Lenin and Mao? LOL

Harte

Interesting reply---responding that what I didn't respond to is relevant, while not analyzing or criticizing what I did respond to. "Things that make ya go 'hmmmmm'."

Lenin's (and his followers') was a true revolution, a trump card to the 1905 rebellion. It sought destruction of the rigid stratification of a sclerotic medieval czardom, including a petit bourgeois soon to be crushed in favor of workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors and their organized committees ('soviets'). The betrayal was to come some years later, and Stalin embodied the corruption of revolutionary thought into totalitarian action, bumbling into a world war for which he and his 'united republics' were ill-prepared. The German invasion of 1941, leading to the Great Patriotic War, was to the USSR as Pearl Harbor/9-11 have been to the US.

As for Mao, it is a fact that hundreds of millions still virtually worship him and gaze lovingly into his peculiar Little Red Book. Many, including Ho Chi Minh, father of revolutionary Vietnam, the Peruvian 'Sendero Luminoso' (Shining Path) and others have emulated Mao--for better or worse. I myself consider his crimes to have outweighed his accomplishments, but even this following fact might shut me up on that point: China is now the most 'capitalist' of 'communist' nations, in multiple ways. On one economic level, the good ol' US of A is trapped in indebtedness to the "Chi-com-caps."

None of these negatives can be sustained for long in a discussion of the Sandinista Revolution, which triumphed militarily in 1979 but continues to inspire and affect the people of Nicaragua--as opposed to the American bought-and-paid-for-butchery of Puppet Somoza (3 generations thereof). Like bin Laden, Somoza was assassinated as a lurking enemy of the people of Nicaragua who could not be allowed to live on to foment terrorism. Ronbo Reagan took on that role, that despicable rapscallion terror-monger.

Your riposte would have been much more effective had it addressed what I wrote. Instead, you seem to think my lack of response about Lenin and Mao amounts to anything. You haven't addressed the reality of Sandinismo (a socio-politco-economic nationalist vision) and its ups and downs over a tumultuous 44 years. It's still alive. Nicaragua is demonstrably better off for the courage, sacrifice and vigor of Sandino, Fonseca, Ortega, Cardenal and most of the other Sandinistas.

Edited December 9, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[Space Commander Travis]

None of these negatives can be sustained for long in a discussion of the Sandinista Revolution, which triumphed militarily in 1979 but continues to inspire and affect the people of Nicaragua--as opposed to the American bought-and-paid-for-butchery of Puppet Somoza (3 generations thereof). Like bin Laden, Somoza was assassinated as a lurking enemy of the people of Nicaragua who could not be allowed to live on to foment terrorism. Ronbo Reagan took on that role, that despicable rapscallion terror-monger.

And how did he try to do that, at least partly? By supplying arms to the Contras, paid for by money he'd got from selling arms (via Israel!) to the Mad Mullahs. Not much room there for smugness about morality, I think.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh

[Harte]

Your riposte would have been much more effective had it addressed what I wrote. Instead, you seem to think my lack of response about Lenin and Mao amounts to anything. You haven't addressed the reality of Sandinismo (a socio-politco-economic nationalist vision) and its ups and downs over a tumultuous 44 years. It's still alive. Nicaragua is demonstrably better off for the courage, sacrifice and vigor of Sandino, Fonseca, Ortega, Cardenal and most of the other Sandinistas.

I certainly don't mean to seem supportive of Somoza, however, I will say that Nicaraguua was worse off under the Sandinistas than under Somoza regarding the topic I was discussing - economies.

Nicaragua didn't start coming out from under that burden until they booted the Sandinistas out of power in the 1990's and began free market reforms.

Facts are facts and no amount of hero worship will change them. Ortega was a corrupt child molesting dictator - similar to Somoza except for the molestation part.

Harte

[DeWitz]

Harte, these "facts" of yours are not facts.

I don't worship any human hero or otherwise.

Ortega "is" as much of a child molester as W. "is" a drunken, coke-sniffing, deserting (from Nat. Guard) moron.' If I said that I'd be accused of besmirching the reputation of someone I don't know, as you have done with the "child molester" accusation (unproven; no conviction). Clinton and Obama have admitted illegal drug use in their pasts. Shall we call them criminals as a result? At least they were honest, unlike blatant liar and flim-flam-con-man Bush, hiding behind the flag and good-ol-boyism to our detriment, reading books to children while the Towers burned. . .

Nicaragua never lost its free market; nationalization of many industries took place simultaneously with ongoing reform.

If you truly believe that things got worse under the Sandinistas, who are the majority party in Nicaragua's congress at this moment, with former "terrorist-freedom fighter-guerilla-nationalist-Sandinista-Presidente Ortega serving as executive, thne: 1)You've never visited Nicarauga; 2) You've never read a book about Nicaragua that wasn't written by a Republocrat on a junket there; or 3) You are are a reflexoid poster who writes what he "thinks" is true without benefit of research and due diligence. And I don't mean "Wiki"-search.

I am so off topic here, but your reasoning on this one needs some homework.

Edited December 10, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[Harte]

Harte, these "facts" of yours are not facts.

I don't worship any human hero or otherwise.

Ortega "is" as much of a child molester as W. "is" a drunken, coke-sniffing, deserting (from Nat. Guard) moron.' If I said that I'd be accused of besmirching the reputation of someone I don't know, as you have done with the "child molester" accusation (unproven; no conviction).

Accused by his own daughter.

Did Bush's daughters accuse him?

Clinton and Obama have admitted illegal drug use in their pasts. Shall we call them criminals as a result?

Fine by me, since by definition it is true.

At least they were honest, unlike blatant liar and flim-flam-con-man Bush, hiding behind the flag and good-ol-boyism to our detriment, reading books to children while the Towers burned. . .

You simply must bring the subject back to Bush?

I thought we were talking about economies and the elites controlling them.

Nicaragua never lost its free market; nationalization of many industries took place simultaneously with ongoing reform.

Nationalization of industries is the opposite of free marketing. Improvements occured after these industries began to be privatized - undoing the Sandinista's (and Somoza's) failures.

If you truly believe that things got worse under the Sandinistas, who are the majority party in Nicaragua's congress at this moment, with former "terrorist-freedom fighter-guerilla-nationalist-Sandinista-Presidente Ortega serving as executive, thne: 1)You've never visited Nicarauga; 2) You've never read a book about Nicaragua that wasn't written by a Republocrat on a junket there; or 3) You are are a reflexoid poster who writes what he "thinks" is true without benefit of research and due diligence. And I don't mean "Wiki"-search.

I am so off topic here, but your reasoning on this one needs some homework.

Already did it. For example:

Nicaragua's economy was ravaged in the 1980s by the Contra War, which saw the destruction of much of the country's infrastructure. At the same time, the US staged an economic blockade from 1985 onward.

Following the end of the war and the defeat of the Sandinistas in the 1990 general election, Nicaragua began free market reforms, privatizing more than 350 state companies. Since then, inflation has been reduced from 33,603% to 8%, and the government's foreign debt has been cut in half. The economy began expanding in 1991 and grew 2.5% in 2001. In 2001, the global recession, combined with a series of bank failures, low coffee prices, and a drought, caused the economy to retract.

Source

There's more:

link 1

link 2

Reforms which resulted in improvements began after the Sandinistas were booted. The fact that you believe otherwise indicates that, regarding your statement about hero worship, you are simply in denial.

Ortega no longer beleves in his former socialist ways. Rather convenient - just like any politician.

Harte

[Merc14]

In a way I think this country needed to be bludgeoned by progressives gone wild. Massive debt, unprecedented numbers out of work and press trying deperately to cover it all up is finally coming to light because of the dreadful Obamacare legislation which gets worse daily. Now the folks that fell for the Obama myth are learning that presciption coverage is changing drastically and the sticker shock will be staggering.

Romney maybe could've stopped all this and then the media would spend the next 4 or 8 years blaming the loss of Obamacare for everything from the price of stamps to war in the middle east.

Reality is hitting now so maybe we can wake a few low info voters up and show them that their silly decisions in the voting booth can cause real harm to them personally. The best thing about Obamacare is the media can't cover it up because it hits peopel directly in the wallet.

[Yamato]

I believe in a free economy, however. If people are revolting (another one!) over elites controlling the economy, they'd do well to look out for whatever system they decide to replace it with.

After all, how did Lenin, Mao and the Sandinistas do?

And what did Bush do? Stop finding your salvation in republican politics. There is none.

[Harte]

Again with Bush?

What has that got to do with it?

One thing he did not do was murder a hundred thousand of his own citizens.

The point I was making was that rebellion most often leads to totalitarianism.

It appears that the main argument for Obama is that he's not Bush.

Some endorsement.

Harte

Edited December 10, 2013 by Harte

[Space Commander Travis]

Again with Bush?

What has that got to do with it?

One thing he did not do was murder a hundred thousand of his own citizens.

And neither has Obama yet, despite the confident predictions of many.

Perhaps after all, he's not the New Hitler/Stalin (depending on whether one goes along with the notion that he's a Communist), but he's just another, more or less ineffectual, Politician just like any of the others.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh

[Harte]

I guess the topic just flipped again.

We were commenting on the "elites" that "control the economy," not the liars that will say anything for a vote and then do the opposite.

Harte

[Yamato]

Again with Bush?

What has that got to do with it?

One thing he did not do was murder a hundred thousand of his own citizens.

The point I was making was that rebellion most often leads to totalitarianism.

It appears that the main argument for Obama is that he's not Bush.

Some endorsement.

Harte

Not just Bush, again with Bush policies that Obama is continuing.

Bush tried to give Wall Street and investment bankers the American peoples' Social Security money; how many millions would that have killed when the stock market got cut in half?

[Harte]

Far fewer than it will kill when the government can no longer make those payments.

Harte

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

It appears that the main argument for Obama is that he's not Bush.

It's how he got elected TWICE, why change something that seems to work?

[Leonardo]

You should consider the reason said funds are kept elsewhere - we already have the world's highest corporate tax.

Perhaps if this were remedied, corporate tax revenues would increase even with the tax rate being lowered.

Harte

Going back to this for a sec - are you sure you've got the order things happened the right way around, Harte?

Do companies offshore their revenues because the corporate tax-rate has a high maximum rate, or did the corporate tax maximum rate have to increase because companies were offshoring their revenues?

If the latter, reducing that tax rate will only have 1 effect on govt revenue - it will lower it.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

What about corporate tax minimums?

You know, setting a minimum rate the business MUST pay in tax.

[Leonardo]

What about corporate tax minimums?

You know, setting a minimum rate the business MUST pay in tax.

Unless they close the loopholes allowing companies to mitigate their tax requirements, then no change in any tax rate - maximum or minimum - will have any noticeable effect on govt revenue. Companies will look to reduce the tax they pay regardless what rate is being asked.

[DeWitz]

You seem to know very little about 20th century Latin America to be making these allegations.

The complaintant was not Daniel Ortega's daughter, but rather his step-daughter (one of several). The case was dismissed for lack of evidence. He's as much of a child molester as W.Bush is a drunk, cocaine-abusing imbecile. That hasn't yet been "proven," but sensible people know the answer. Perhaps this goes for Ortega, too. It does not, of course, detract from his obvious accomplishements, with the invovlement of other Sandinista notables

Without Uncle Sam's help, in fact with Ronbo Reagan's bloodthirsty and myopic hatred of "real" or potential communists, Ortega and the junta (1979 to 1987) fought a bloody, countervevolutionary war, initiated and funded by America the Beautiful, while installing local democratic and economic reforms.The Sandinistas peed on your, or anyone's, faith in "American Exceptionalism." In the past 60 years, with Cuba possibly excluded and the legal leap into Chavism in Venezuela, clearly a non-violent movement in a South American milieu, open you blinkered peepers.. Compare this recent autonomous activism and triumph with over a hundred years of history with Dole (Amercian Fruit Co.) and other American companies exploiting land, workers and even governments to capitialstic scortched-earth ends.

Harte, I'm sorry that you choose to remain, apparently and willfully, in the dark on these and other aspects of Sandinismo, the first successful revolution on the Americas since Castro '59. Reagan, typically, dropped the ball on the Monroe Doctrine in our own backyard, whilst sacrificing almost 300 US Marines in his fools' errand in Lebanon, 1987.

What a cruel, ugly and unnecessary joke.