Who is Mittney and who is the class he represents? Although these are two separate things Do any of them have any Legitimate Right in occupying the position
they do or do they simply do it because they can? The latter is known in the law as a “prescriptive” right - viz., you conquered a territory, held it for 70
years and have succeeded in meeting all of the requirements of “Legitimacy”
It is an aspect of Sovereignty; and as Our 1st Chief Justice explained in Chisholm v Georgia - not only are we sovereigns without subjects but that
sovereigns are equal regarding the manner in which the law applies to them. Think about that you may Judge for yourself.
I once told someone that I liked very much that they were “a legend in their own mind”. I feel bad about it but it was true. In the USA this is common among
people that collected in one way or another lots of money or people that have secured office and mean to stay there. You could say that if a person holds an
office for 20 years, that it’s been “customary” for x to hold that office. One of the things the GOPstapo don’t like to admit is this - just because it’s a
custom doesn’t mean it’s a good one.
I had the unfortunate experience of having been swindled out of my life savings by this bait and switch woman who came on like a Liberal Democrat and turned
out to be a WCHP Gold Digger - presumably the only sort of women that vote for Mittney. The GOPstapo is counting on these sorts of women to vote for them
and I would hope they might do at least one decent thing in their life and vote for Barack Obama instead. Barack looks awesome in that one dark grey suit
that he wears. Mittney can’t touch that.
But as this mystery wrapped in an enigma unfolded one of the things I discovered about her was that she adored “The Great Gatsby”.
And apparently “Birth of a Nation”, Hollywood, did a rereremake for 2012. Republications coincide with close but failed attempts of the GOPstapo to install a
White Male Prince.
Is there really any difference between an escort and a housewife?
“Atlas Shrugged”, by Ayn Rand, seems to be an extension of the Gatsby idea, at least how my assailant explained it to me; but she didn’t care much for Ayn
Rand or “Atlas Shrugged”, presumably because of the ‘moocher’ class depicted in that book, which she did not appreciate being associated with.lQQk.
One of the peculiar things about GOPstapo moochers, is that they seem to think that mooching is a “wonderful” thing as long as you keep it in the family or
else in some private capacity -e.g., the Mittney solution to higher education is that young adults borrow money for college from their parents and then shop
around for the best deal.
This might be a real job creator, the founder was a simple man, longing for female ‘companionship’ … and now we may present to you, “Mittney Tech”, the Walmart of
Higher Education. Because,
“Behind every great man is a great woman”
What else could this possibly mean?
Build the Triborough Bridge and I’ll let you fuck me missionary style, just once, and both of us keep all of our clothes on, I’ll use Fredericks of Hollywood
support hose. Yes they’re crotchless. I wonder what the sex life of Robert Moses was
like?
But the key to a con is taking the target by surprise; the power of audacity: to feel pathetically inadequate or just plain stupid when the target doesn’t
understand a major detail of “the story”, which is a vague and amorphous affair, pleasantly wrapped, in an appeal to pity.
The Damsel in distress. O dear all i can do is shop.
I always associated this mind set with the JFK era. Why are all of these college boys standing around and suddenly reading “Esquire” Magazine? And it appears they’re wondering the same thing as they are all looking at each other while turning the pages to and fro. Hef’s got all
the good pix. He’s young, he’s hip; but I don’t understand? You don’t understand? What a square, get with it baby. Bob Fosse’s going to do the choreography while Jackie’s shopping on Fifth Avenue and being adored by Truman Capote.
“It’s the economy stupid” is the corollary.
The Gold Digger/housewife con aims to immasculate the man-target: O I see you’re unable to automatically get a hard on, or will one, you must be a
Homosexual, what good could you possibly be to me, then; o well, “you don’t do well enough for me” anyway. So if the man can’t go, auto hard, at will, his
alternative is - I have money !! o well in that case
So if a guy was tortured into Heterosexuality and has a normal sex drive then he’s supposed to do, a Great Gatsby, so she may woe and win him over. They call this “The Great American Novel”and if he can’t see that then he’s got to be a Homo.
Under the present paradigm/ethos, it might seem and some will undoubtedly argue that it takes a certain “talent” to pull off The Great Woman “trick” - e.g., how can a
ruthless female of this sort even keep a man’s attention or desires? That element alone, is an intriguing come on e.g., “she has him wrapped around her
little finger”
Why am I intrigued by the person running the con?
But it’s not, difficult, really, you just have to be, ruthless, which the Society of USA
Comstock facilitates; but still, it wouldn’t be anything without the idiots that go along with it; and those comprise, “the Mittney base”
Mostly men, by course, longing for a much smaller population of women.
Prime example, the media. I’m disappointed with Chris Matthews, he spent an entire hour going on about this John Edwards drivel “I have a feeling God isn’t done
with me yet”. No John, you’re right, Hollywood is doing “The Jettson’s” and they want you to play George. You might as well, John, the media already announced
that you’re all washed up in politics. You have a cock and you used it in a manner the media has disapproved of. Is that the case with society too. As long as there’s ‘the media’ will we ever know?
But you don’t want to be caught consorting with whores. You remember Eliot Spitzer. And look at their definition - a college student using birth control. What do you get when you
give dope power. Rush. They can argue back and forth but no one dares ask - is Heterosexuality so dear, that I must pay cold cash for it? Air and water are free,
why isn’t sex? Is it because the Democratic-republicans make us pay for food?
$900K sugar daddy, wow. I could live extravagantly on a 1/3 of that for all of my remaining years. Of course I’m a man and would rather remain
asexual. It’s much cheaper.
And yet people continue doing Heterosexuality because (for them) (a) same sex isn’t appealing or (b) you can think that you own me, but from here on out,
you’re going to be working for me. Paraphrasing Quentin Crisp [p]’women soon learn that loves fades but alimony is forever’. So there is no question that Gold Diggers have a vested interest in preserving and protecting Heterosexual Patriarchy and
no one holding political office or none of the guys that get a hard on buying electoral advertizing have the guts to confront them with it. Big bucks make up
for a little dick and/or lousy fucking. It’s a marriage in heaven. They’re the guys that buy advertizing and they’re the same folks that create your role
models
Conformity is the GOPstapo bread and butter. Go with the flow. Mob rule. Talk about ulterior motives !! Those that fled England, due to religious persecution
were known as, “the non-conformists”. Just wait til we get established in the new world …
The real problem with this is that the government replaced the welfare and the happiness of the people, with the welfare and happiness of business.
So why do these persist with all of this anti-corporate rot when the real problem is the preferred position of business over people? Because most of them
never lived or were too young to know what it was like before. ‘The little guy’ charged a manufacturer’s retail price - a fixed price via retail markup. It’s why vertical price fixing used to be
illegal. ‘The discount stores’ that went out of business as the result of this RayGun era change in the law, headed by Arizona’s Dennis DeConcini, was
objected to by Howard Metzenbaum, who incidentally, was the only person that voted against the Scalia confirmation that immediately followed Bork. Metzy
asked, why are we confirming him after all we went through with Bork. We’re getting the same thing !!
But the discount stores out priced the little guystores, “mom and pop” shops, and now that franchisees are hegemonically established throughout the nation and as capitalists hope, the entire world, they now charge the suggested manufacturers retail price, oftentimes under false advertising, which is illegal in NYS, but the AG is too busy nosing around Wall Street.
Book I, Chptr 4, Vattel “Law of Nations” (I can’t vouch for the online version, proceed with caution) I’ve failed to find the specific part I’m looking for so far but this is pretty good for the nonce. 1st, read how I quoted this below in regard to the situation of our present society; and then compare my
quotation with the actual text. lQQk
“But in most kingdoms, a criminal flattery has long since caused these maxims to be forgotten. A crowd of servile courtiers easily persuade a proud monarch
that the nation was made for him, and not he for the nation. He soon considers the kingdom as a patrimony that is his own property, and his people as a herd
of cattle from which he is to derive his wealth, and which he may dispose of to answer his own views, and gratify his passions. Hence those fatal wars
undertaken by ambition, restlessness, hatred and pride;—hence those oppressive taxes, whose produce is dissipated by ruinous luxury, or squandered upon
mistresses and favourites;—hence, in fine, are important posts given by favour, while public merit is neglected, and every thing that does not immediately
interest the prince, is abandoned to ministers and subalterns”.
“A good prince, a wise conductor of society, ought to have his mind impressed with this great truth, that the sovereign power is solely intrusted to him for
the safety of the state, and the happiness of all the people,—that he is not permitted to consider himself as the principal object in the administration of
affairs, to seek his own satisfaction, or his private advantage,—but that he ought to direct all his views, all his steps, to the greatest advantage of the
state and people who have submitted to him.* What a noble sight it is to see a king of England rendering his parliament an account of his principal
operations,—assuring that body, the representatives of the nation, that he has no other end in view than the glory of the state, and the happiness of his
people,—and affectionately thanking all who concur with him in such salutary views! Certainly a monarch who makes use of this language, and by his conduct
proves the sincerity of his professions, is, in the opinion of the wise, the only great man”.
Gatsby was an easily forgettable and unremarkable book, at least for me. Did he fuck? Did he have lots of Mistresses or just “one great woman”? He had no
money, and then had and received a fortune by unscrupulous means to win Daisy; and it failed, presumably, on principle
She would have voted for Obama, but at least, not Mittney.
It’s time to return to the rule of law, rather than a government of men; as the Massachusetts Constitution, drawn by a Federalist, prescribes
But Ut O, look out, Thom Hartmann:
“A political society is a moral person (prelim. §2) inasmuch as it has an understanding and a will of which it makes use for the conduct of its affairs, and
is capable of obligations and rights. When therefore a people confer the sovereignty on any one person, they invest him with their understanding and will,
and make over to him their obligations and rights, so far as relates to the administration of the state, and to the exercise of the public authority. The
sovereign, or conductor of the state, thus becoming the depositary of the obligations and rights relative to government, in him is found the moral person,
who, without absolutely ceasing to exist in the nation, acts thenceforwards only in him and by him. Such is the origin of the representative character
attributed to the sovereign. He represents the nation in all the affairs in which he may happen to be engaged as a sovereign. It does not debase the dignity
of the greatest monarch to attribute to him this representative character; on the contrary, nothing sheds a greater lustre on it, since the monarch thus
unites in his own person all the majesty that belongs to the entire body of the nation”.
The irony in all of this hasn’t changed since I’ve been following politics. I started by trying figure out wtf LBJ was talking about after Nixon &co. killed
JFK. What I eventually realized is that the Democratics always promote all of the things that their proponents indicate to overwhelmingly accrue to their
adversaries. Specifically, they are the champions of economic growth, full employment and the additional fact, is, that the stock market always performs
better when the Democratics hold the White House; and yet the very people that prosper as a direct result are spending 10s of billions of dollars, with the
intention and design, of putting Mittney in the White House instead of the Democratic.
But alas, to the citizen electorate, regarding all of the foregoing events and actions, conformity to such bullshit is not mandatory. If you want change you
have to make it. How long before we’re all required to wear clip on badges.
Book I, Chptr 4, section 54
“A subject ought patiently to suffer from the prince, doubtful wrongs, and wrongs that are supportable,—the former, because whoever has submitted to the
decision of a judge, is no longer capable of deciding his own pretensions; and as to those that are supportable, they ought to be sacrificed to the peace and
safety of the state, on account of the great advantages obtained by living in society. It is presumed, as matter of course, that every citizen has tacitly
engaged to observe this moderation; because, without it, society could not exist. But when the injuries are manifest and atrocious,— when a prince, without
any apparent reason, attempts to deprive us of life, or of those things, the loss of which would render life irksome,— who can dispute our right to resist
him? Self-preservation is not only a natural right, but an obligation imposed by nature, and no man can entirely and absolutely renounce it. And though he
might give it up, can he be considered as having done it by his political engagements, since he entered into society only to establish his own safety upon a
more solid basis? The welfare of society does not require such a sacrifice”;
It’s easily forseeable, particularly in terms “to deprive us of … those things, the loss of which would render life irksome”, that not only Mittney would do this but his party particularly in Congress does so already. But here the task is much simpler, because we have an election to decide, rather than a civil war.
Mittney is not change. In a light most favorable to him and then for us, it’s out of the pan and into the fire.
Is an issue created by jealousy, within the Democratic faction
I.e., republicans have more “large contributors” than the Democratics do, so the Democratics
want to limit the amount of money these persons can “contribute” and thereby attempt to secure some sort of advantage.
But, what advantage? “what are they protesting about? no one seems to know” - i.e., so the advantage is never indicated; instead we get the old - if you
were educated you’d know.
But, no matter
Their chief method, at present, is the mutilation and annihilation of the 14th A. (which was written and championed by the Republican Party, mostly by
Republicans from NYS who were known as “The Radical Republicans”) and the remainder of the US Const, by making States Rights thee US Constitution.
Why do you think that no person in the present day republican faction or in any manner associated with it, opposes this?
Because it has no affect on them and gives them practically speaking, everything they could ever want - viz., the annihilation of the Federal government and
the return to the confederacy limited to “defence” of the various “spreading American Democracy Around the globe” businesses that barely anyone in the media
dares speak of at all.
Every State becomes Wisconsin or Michigan
The 1st thing that you will know if you read my blog, which is absolutely free as long as you have internet access, is this - Sovereignty cannot exist
without you, the individual, being sovereign. So called “States Rights” is based on the idea of State Sovereignty. Sovereignty, as it applies to a State or
Nation is an extension of sovereignty as it exists with the individual - i.e., I have the right to drink water, eat food, have shelter and socialize with
people; otherwise what is the point of living? This is uncontroversial and is agreed upon by all authorities regarding Natural Law and the Law of Nations,
which the GOPstapo’s famed “Declaration of Independence” is based on. State sovereignty is an extension of individual sovereignty by assembly of the people.
Take away “corporations are people” and you immediately lose your citizenship and become a subject of the Despotism wherein you reside - i.e., not only could you
not sue the State in the Federal Court, because of the 11th Amendment to the US Const, but you will no longer be able to sue any municipality in Federal Court because your
present right to sue a muncipality for the deprivation of your rights protected under the US Const is based solely on the principle of law that a municipal
corporation is a person. See “Owens v Independence Missouri”, US Supreme Court, Brennan for the majority.
The 2nd thing is that the legal principle that corporations are people is merely another way of stating the foregoing - i.e., a State is a corporation. A
State is a person. If a State is not a person then it does not provide a republican form of government see Article IV section 4 US Const and is devoid of sovereignty unless sovereignty becomes vested in some other person or thing. The US Supreme Court has expressly stated that States are corporations and thus people but as Brennan also ruled, that for
jurisdictional purposes of 11th A. US Const., issues, the State is not considered a person.
The Democratic faction used to use the expression “no man is an island”. This expression can assume different connotations depending on how you view
sovereignty. Under the law of nations an empty uninhabited island is not sovereign it is in a State of Nature. Now you can go out sailing, come across it,
explore it and claim it, but in order for it to be recognized, as sovereign, you have to be able to defend it along with several other things under the law
that you can also now find in the law of nations cf. the Preamble to the US Const.
This is all that State Sovereignty means cf US Const. Art. I, sec 10 and 10th Amendment - e.g., the States don’t have to have prior permission to enact local
legislation (within it’s fixed boundaries) subject to Art VI, clause 2. Now look at Article IV, section 4 (ibid)
What the republicans want - who are essentially a gaggle of White Christian Heterosexial Patriarchs whom decided that the democratic faction didn’t honor
them enough - is the power to buy State elections - e.g., Wisconsin - and then exert the full coercive power of the State majority against various
individuals - e.g., Nigger, get back in your cage, woman, spread your thighs and have my white baby; get cleaned up cut your hair, don’t use various
naturally occurring substances, you can’t read this, see that, hear this; but look nice and neat, go to church and don’t say fuck. And then tell whatever
remains of the Federal government don’t you come into our independent sovereign state and be telling us what to do. Which is why troops were sent to Little
Rock - it’s called en force ment. And nowadays they deploy things like Ron Paul - o sure vote for this and we’ll let you smoke pot - (small print) if the
majority allows; because the common law categories and principles regarding them - viz., life, liberty and property under the 5th and 14th A. US Const are subject to
abrogation under the law of the States - e.g., NYS Const. Art. 1, sec 14. This is one of the most favorite of the Great Compromises offered up by the
Democratics in their apparently irresistible atavistic ways - we’ll leave that up to the States - e.g., people that have less effective means of “delivering the
vote” or raising money, O we just leave them as “subjects of the State in which they reside or pass through”.
Like women being forced to endure these various tortures and indignities in the GOPstapo controlled States if they attempt to have a safe abortion; but rest assured the
Democratics will be there to say that you still have a right to an abortion no matter how much State majorities, abuse, torment and degrade you. Just keep the money flowing and we’ll “get the message out”. Yep, the
good old Thomas Jeffersons, they did the same with broadsides, hee fucking haw.
A few years back - because here in the US we consider decades a few years under the, “with all deliberate speed” rule - the State Rights Confederates used the United
Nations as the Federal government surrogate. An educational instructional tool. So many of the same people doing OWS were essentially protesting on behalf of Ronald RayGun and the Bush family
to destroy the United Nations !! they’re robbing us (e.g., Brown and Root ) of our
(Ralph) sovereignty (Nader).
Ironic, isn’t it.
The distinction is in which way the power goes and what it’s for. It goes into the States if or when they arbitrarily deprive a person or person(s) of some aspect regarding Life, Liberty and property or the deprivation of some other privilege or immunity without due process and equal protection; as opposed to a majority in the State claiming the right to do so. One is to vindicate cherished rights the other is to abrogate them.
I’ve explained this dozens of times in my blog, in letters to Congress going back to the 1980s but no one with juice ever pays or paid any attention to me or
more importantly, these incontrovertible principles of law. So it’s nice when I read William Brennan or William O Douglas or anyone for that matter reaching the same conclusions having met none of them. And many of these decisions were 5-4 or 6-3. Why? Because both factions don’t like the law, they want to change it and believe they can by
purchasing majorities. The Democratic-republicans is one Party and they all want the same thing.
They do what they believe in. Money in politics allows them to get out their message because they don’t believe in using the government to do the same thing. I Love CSPAN. So the only difference between the democratics and republicans is that they have their guys and the others have theirs and want their guys to win and figure everything’s
for sale - “it’s the economy stupid” - and most especially who you will vote for. In order to think that Money in Politics has any other significance is to believe that your vote is for sale - viz, you will believe whoever has spent the most money on getting their message out will win the election
Paradoxically, the real election, is, for their guys.
The 3rd thing is that if you’ve made it, this far, and understand it enough to argue down these people - that is to the point of them being tired of
interrupting you and not knowing what else to say in response - they will then “appeal to pity”. White men from down south, like Bill Clinton, are really good at
this and lots of women just can’t resist - did you get that Karl? Their story is this - if you “get money out of politics” then your Democratic-republican
representative will be more responsive to what you want and need (small print) within the menu provided.
Vegetables: potato. would you like that baked, french fried or potato salad.
No where on earth or at any other time has the following had greater significance than it has now: in newspapers, magazines, radio and television - “MONEY
TALKS” - and it does so through the News and through advertising; the latter of the two is what pays for the whole thing. So if you “take money out of
politcs” money still controls, what is reported, as news, and what information, you receive, regarding what it is that you “want” to buy.
It’s as if those that report the news are saying ‘we can’t help ourselves, we have to say what we’re paid to say’ which actually exposes the whole canard - viz., which is it? the money buys your vote or buys news reporters who can’t help themselves and have to instruct you to vote for whomsoever spends the most money or they get fired and blacklisted? What a crock of shit. If there is any truth to this then the money is ordering the news to tell you who to vote for depending on who spends the most money. So turn off the fucking news and don’t read the broadsides and then what happens? They send you money in the mail with instructions on who to vote for? They burn a cross in your front yard and follow you in behind the curtain with their pointy hat on? O yeah sure send more money I’ll vote for him and then you vote for someone else. Well the original story is that this money corrupts members of Congress and makes them do things against their actual beliefs. Well if you believe that then the 1st thing you can do is tell Congress and the media to instruct the people and members of Congress to end all tax deductions for all advertising. Or John McCain is a big daddy on all this right? Regulate advertising under the interstate commerce clause and see if Scalia & co says that the 1st Amendment renders the interstate commerce clause unconstitutional.
What all of this presumes and supposes is that “money corrupts” and therefore both factions ought to have “a level playing field” and “equal opportunity” to
corrupt people with their guys’ money. Unfortunately, for people that believe in this shit, like Thom Hartmann, Robert Reich and possibly a few others, who
are members of/work in the mainstream media: “level playing field” and “equal opportunity” are Democratic “talking points”. In contrast, the republican
faction believes in “the winners” and “success” for the determination of who can have the greater opportunity to corrupt voters: but, primarily, people that
report the news, who are, afterall, the chief progenitors of this peculiar ideology - viz.,
Corruption for the sake of “democracy”
Are the prime targets, See the little red light?
~~~~~~~
“MONEY TALKS” really ought to replace E Pluribus Unum or whatever the government presumes the US Motto is or what ever it presumes to project to the rest of
the world because “MONEY TALKS” sums it up succinctly and accurately and consequently this is the true religion of the Democratic-republicans - i.e., it’s what
they worship and adore. As Mittney explains - don’t punish us for our success. Which is getting the most money for their campaigns. So when one faction of the only allowed two, under present US law, feel that one faction has an advantage over the other: then the factions
merely have different talking point, for the Democratics it’s “level playing field” or that “we all play by the same rules”; with the republicans it’s “get big
government off our backs” we want to be free to “unleash the power of free enterprise”.
Sounds like commerce to me - see Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the US Const. Amendment not required. But Will is, and 4th - it’s not there.
In conclusion “Money in Politics” is probably the biggest “distraction” of all. It’s like a real nice guy in a business suit jerking off to porn while saying geez I’m sorry I really am. My position on that is take off your clothes and make yourself comfortable. Quit being such a hypocrit
Things really haven’t changed much since I was born except: everything costs 10 to 40 or 50 times as much as it did - but the democratic-republicans consider that
success, want it to grow and spread it all over the globe; rich people pay less taxes; we need more picture IDs based on more private information and we’re stopped from entering courts and other
buildings unless we have some and still have to go through magnetometers pat downs, &c are stopped while driving and walking; but !! Black people and LGBT people can now participate under the very same repressions; women can have abortions if
they can afford one and survive State torment and abuse; and so far we get to see bare assed women and people fucking for money on the internet. So where do
the democratics and repblicans differ on these things? It’s only a matter of importance: the GOPstapo believes that criminalizing abortions, mandatory IDs disclosing your social security number and other private information
for as many things as possible, stopping and harassing people spying on them via the internet or any other means are very very important while the Democratics go along with all of these things but feel that jobs are
more important. Can we get any more vague and amorphous?
All that these people really care about is how the news reports what they’re doing.
They created this situation themselves; but to be fair most of it happened under RayGun. At that time, the GOPstapo guys weren’t doing as well as WCHP
“workers”, in terms of income growth, so Paul Volcker &co changed all that by raising interest rates in some cases to 20%. So if you had a million dollars
and weren’t making enough in interest to support your habit(s) now you could make 20% - ie., $100k per annum for the next 30 years.
So meanwhile, as these people were filling up on free money from the US government left for someone else to pay 30 years hence - i.e., 2010 or there abouts
and more likely rolled over to a later time when interest rates are lower - Sam Nunn started the all volunteer military - no job? - join the military, “Be
All that you Can Be”. Safe bet, no wars (small print) not yet. And the media was O dear God when will this awful recession end O O O O and RayGun happy as a
clam called them “the doom and gloom Liberals” and eventually the Democratic-republicans abolished tariffs (that’s easy just tell them it’s a tradfitional
Democratic Party Policy have the media say it is and they’ll do it) and also lowered tax rates on the millionaires lounging about with their $100k per annum
mainline whoa suddenly juiced with less taxes; but O dear God interest rates are being lowered, we can’t get in anymore !!
But look at the retail stocks; and now people are allowed to have computers in their homes !! it’s “morning in america” and the media was like O we like this
O so so very much; RayGun is President and Mary Tilotson via CNN announced that “God is a Republican”.
But the transition wasn’t smooth, there was that no good filthy rotten bastard Dan Rather and his kind that didn’t seem to be cooperating as we’d like, so
we’re going to have to go after CBS and get ‘our guys’ to come up with some different kind of media - most of which was based on “The Stock Market” ding ding
ding ding, it’s “The Closing Bell” and that part of the media is still with us to this day and that alone is what drives the ideology
“It’s the economy stupid”.
But all of this isn’t bullshit, because as Allan Greenspan, albeit rather slow, finally realized: many people that never participated in “the market” were
now participating, and all of the money that was in bonds, started flooding into the stock market. If you were a smart trader you could make 15 to 20% on
each trade. Plus interest rates were being lowered gradually, so people that relied on high interest rates, pension funds &c could get pretty decent returns for sometime while the stock market was booming too. Do a few trades skim some off buy some intermediate term bonds. Regular people themselves or through account managers were doing this as a means of augmenting their “disposable income” - i.e., their ability to make RayGun’s Growth, which the media
loved more than anything, “the new peace and prosperity”. Essentially buying cheap imports with “the strong dollar” while businesses that used to make these
very products were being bought up by Mittney’s Raiders, their assets were sold off, the capital gains distributed to his crew and then Look mawh no business.
You’re all free now you can go home and play the piano. Did you try the Army? So all of the things that were unaffordable were now affordable and everyone that had a job - even
if it was at Burger King of as Jim Wright used to say the “selling pizzas to one another” Reagan economy was in the bullish buy buy buy mode, just like a wildcat striking oil, a lumberjack finding the fmr Amazon Rain Forest. There’s just
no end this will go on forever and ever until the rumors spread that “when your mailman starts asking you what to buy it’s time to get out of the market”. No no no it’s
can’t be “Turn on those machines” !! people lost and wanted their money back. People gamble and want their money back. People have money and act like a big
shot, everyone likes them and then after all the money is paid out to people so that people will like them all their fans leave and go find someone else to like.
Neither of the factions do anything to change any of that because they both want it. That’s what they believe in, that’s what America is to them and if this is not what President Obama wants then he is not making that clear to
“the public” - i.e., people that report the news - or are they corrupted by advertising?
Personally, I think that this is a pretty shitty way to live and the only reason it happened is because Democratic-republicans don’t know anything else; but
if you think that it’s a groovy way to live and it’s what America and life is all about then you ought to be in favor of lowering the capital gains tax rate
- caveat - the time to do this is when interest rates are high but coming down because this makes it less costly for people at a higher tax rate to sell
their bonds and move into stocks; or if you’re into the tertiary parasitic land brigand trip like Mittney was/is, then it gives him and his crew more money to buy
companies, sell their assets, leaving people without a job and Mittney & crew to buy Cadillacs vacation homes in Europe, whatever.
So what the clueless GOPstapo is doing, is trying to repeat the RayGun “it’s morning in America” scenario, under entirely different circumstances - i.e.,
interest rates now are already as low as they’re going to get.
RayGun lucked into the situation he lucked into with the Fed somewhat overreacting. The GOPstapo hasn’t a clue they never did. They think the universe
happened 6000 years ago
The important thing is that the Fed action did work but only as one component part of the equation. The other essential parts were the abolition of tariffs
and the eventual abolition of reserve rates and what is/was allowed as bona fide reserves - i.e., something you can do emergency borrowing on in a crisis
situation - i.e., one of the chief purposes and function of the Fed.
Because of the immense size and amount of international trade transactions ( I had proposes a modest tax on each transaction which almost everyone in government utterly ignored) there was talk of using foreign currency reserves as domestic reserves.
The derugulation of banking allowed for greater and more liberal amounts and terms for “consumer credit”. At one point almost anyone could get a credit card
and banks started requiring it for identification, check cashing and whatever else they could think of to induce you to get one from or through them for a
fee. So people could get credit cards while retail stores were springing up everywhere selling cheap imports.
That function, was possibly, the largest part of the “morning in america” economy. And it was another aspect that the D-rs see no end to even though the end
was/is self-evident - i.e., you run out of source countries to import from. There is no way around this unless you have a system of non discriminatory tariffs
to create an equilibrium between the currencies, which is easily doable but which the D-rs adamantly refuse to do. Consequently trade imbalances become
permanent trade losses and something is then required to sop up the too many dollars chasing too few goods and when there is no sponge that large money goes directly
into speculation - do not pass go do not collect $200.00.
The other part of this “morning in america” economy that has been 100% ignored by almost everyone is what David Stockman wrote about in the 1980s lQQk Stockman was RayGun’s budget director and quit. The States Rights, Goldwater Conservatives willfully and intentionally increased defense spending in order to destroy the ability of the Federal government to do any domestic spending at all. Pat Moynihan used to bitch about this all the time and people like Fritz Hollings used to make fun of him; but it is true and they’re still doing it now. I addressed this in another blog entry. I can remember when the GOPstapo were going apeshit over debt approaching $1 trillion under Carter. I think it was $976 bil; while Alyona reported on her RT show last night that the present day defense budget is $1 trillion, which Mittney and his crew wants to increase. I also remember under RayGun one defense budget of around $169 bil.
From the best I’m able to discern what the President and his crew wants to do is give people money to buy imports but also try to encourage people to start manufacturing businesses in the US so that the amount of imports is counterbalanced by domestic products and thus the greater number would have money from manufacturing jobs to buy domestic products as well as imports.
What Mittney wants to do is have the present GOPstapo members of Congress block any attempt to create demand through the government, get elected on Obama being unable to create demand and then cut taxes for millionaires and cut government spending and this he proclaims will entice foreigners to start businesses here because taxes will be lower for them.
I guess what voters find appealing with Mittney is his National vision of a Carvel Soft Vanilla White America - deport all immigrants unless they have enough money to start a business and that it’s ok if you feel uncomfortable having a Negro in the White House. Mitch n Mittney understand and aim to get rid of him. Rest assured take the kids out for some soft White Carvel
But the fact is neither of these guys have any intention of doing anything any different - not that I can see - but the only sure way to tell is to give the Democratics a clear majority in both Houses and re-elect Obama. Otherwise with Mittney you just get the same guys as under Bush, most of the RayGun guys are too feeble to do much of anything since they were the Nixon guys too.
So if you elect Mittney you’re going to get whatever is going to happen anyway except for Universal Heath care and you’ll have more threats about depriving you of your unGodly civil rights.
If you elect Obama you get whatever is going to happen anyway and you get Universal health care and at least lip service on civil rights. Now you can read this for free and pretty much know everything you need to know or you can glue yourself to the media read see and hear the same shit over and over again.
