Second American Revolution

[Ford Prefect]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente11.1.html

Thoughts?

[Kalrithus]

A pretty interesting read. If public sentiment for Obama's plan and Obama himself continues to wane then the democrats may find their majorities in Congress/House of Rep. overthrown come 2010. They'll have to do some major changes and quit ignoring the growing voice of many Americans if they want to stay in power imo.

[aegir ravenking]

You should really read the Abe Lincoln article.






Well try to at least, I got half way.

[Ford Prefect]

A pretty interesting read. If public sentiment for Obama's plan and Obama himself continues to wane then the democrats may find their majorities in Congress/House of Rep. overthrown come 2010. They'll have to do some major changes and quit ignoring the growing voice of many Americans if they want to stay in power imo.

You make it sound as though the Republicans were having such great approval ratings when Bush was in office. Is there anyone who thinks the PATRIOT act was a good idea?

[aegir ravenking]

One point that always seems missed is that the bailouts weren't even started by Obama, hell the auto bailouts weren't even started by Bush jr.

Not saying that continuing them is/was a good thing. But if you dropped half a trillion into something(note: number pulled fresh out of my ass), and it wasn't enough then wouldn't you rather try and finish the job with another trillion? As opposed to just trying to explain to the tax payers "oops, well that didn't work. Any other ideas?"

Just to state for the record I don't really like the insurance bailouts(never mind the bonus BS that came after), kind of iffy on the bank ones(people without money and financing options soon don't have houses either, not good for anyone. But still, the banks should have known better.). As for the auto companies, they should have been gone along time ago.

[Kalrithus]

ou make it sound as though the Republicans were having such great approval ratings when Bush was in office. Is there anyone who thinks the PATRIOT act was a good idea?

Are you trying to misrepresent me or something? How the heck did you read that much into my simple and straightforward statement... As for the Patriot Act I honestly couldn't have cared less, it in no way impacted my life for the worse and if it brought good intel that was used to save lives, even better. I was strongly against Bush in the areas of spending (he spent like a liberal) but I will give him credit for his strong stand on National Defense and for not denigrating the pride of the presidency by acting like a whiny child like our current president has done on many occasions now . You may go oh noes you right wing-extremist you just want to attack Obama, well not really, I disagree with his policies almost universally yes because I believe they will be bad for the country. Also his behavior so far in office has been less than presidential and though some people may not care about that it is important to have a leader appear at least somewhat dignified.

[Ford Prefect]

I said "you make it sound..." because you did. You said the Democrats are going to lose their majority, as though the Republicans have done something worthy of gaining it.
If neither the Republicans or Democrats can get it right, then shouldn't we get rid of both? That's what I see as being the crux of that article.

[Kalrithus]

No I said

If public sentiment for Obama's plan and Obama himself continues to wane then the democrats may find their majorities in Congress/House of Rep. overthrown come 2010.

I mention nothing about the Republicans and lay blame for any loss square on the shoulders of Obama's policies (which seem now to be tied with his personal popularity at last) and those that support them i.e the majority of democrats. Reading comprehension without bias is your friend

[Ford Prefect]

Yes, it is, so try it.

What I am saying is that the Republicans don't deserve it, either. That is all I was getting at. I don't really care what you thought I was implying. I wasn't.

Edit: Come to think of it, I suppose it's possible you're saying some third party could gain the majority. It was such a far-fetched (but, perhaps, not so much under current conditions) possibility that I didn't consider it.

[DarnYak]

I said "you make it sound..." because you did. You said the democrats are going to lose their majority, as though the Republicans have done something worthy of gaining it.
If neither the Republicans or Democrats can get it right, then shouldn't we get rid of both? That's what I see as being the crux of that article.

UP WITH THE LIBERTARIANS!!!

DarnYak

[Storamin]

I said "you make it sound..." because you did. You said the democrats are going to lose their majority, as though the Republicans have done something worthy of gaining it.
If neither the Republicans or Democrats can get it right, then shouldn't we get rid of both? That's what I see as being the crux of that article.

UP WITH THE LIBERTARIANS!!!

DarnYak

if only, if only.

[jamn455]

Since we are somewhat debating politics here, what do you guys think of this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ridge_terror_alert

[DarnYak]

Probably true yet not entirely - they probably had a real belief of a threat and a need for increased secruity, but their focus on it more so due to the impending election.

DarnYak

[LeCitron]

In regards to the first link, I read about to the point where the guy said "but organized or spontaneous is not the issue". In my thoughts, it is. If it's spontaneous (meaning the ones who did the shouting or whatever may be the example, are the sole "conspirators" in the "revolution"), it's a revolution, if it's organized (organized in this context doesn't mean they put together I plan, I mean someone with ulterior motives is inciting it for their own personal gain) then it's not a revolution, it's dirty politics (of course what politics aren't dirty these days ). Not to mention, have we heard the things people have been saying at the town hall meetings? If this is a "revolution" like the author is suggesting, then it's without good cause, we're just tax weary and under-informed. It's one thing to revolt against a tyrannous leader who taxed us to death for his own personal gain, and another to become weary of a bad situation and taxes and decide to speak out against it (if this turns into a real revolution, which I highly doubt, America will be worse off for it, I'd like to see ANY country revolt during this modern age and come through it better off, much less one which is going through an economic downturn and has a newly elected leader). Ultimately anyone taking part in another revolution would be foolish, if it comes down to wanting to change things, use the system which was made to be adaptable to changing times, it would be far wiser to voice concerns rather than truly revolt (be rational and wise, or start killing other Americans, tough choice, also I'm read somewhere we're supposed to put really sarcastic remarks in like blue in case you're wondering why I put that in blue).

People need to trust Obama a little more. I know when some people read that sentence, they'll sigh or groan or get angry, but let's look at some logic.

Obama came into office with the country headed down a bad economic road, logically would he: A) Try to fix the economy through any means necessary, so America doesn't go into a depression. or B) Pointlessly tax people to purposely make the situation worse (I remind you that Obama and his family are all American citizens (by family I mean wife and daughters) and are affected by his decisions, people seem to like to think that Presidents and Congress try to pass bills on the "American public", which don't affect them, but they are part of the "American public".

If you sincerely don't like Obama, and are just choosing B because of who it is, change that question to a hypothetical, replacing Obama with "a new president" (and the word came with comes). Really which is more logical, that he's trying to fix the nation, or that he's just trying to mess it up.

Bottom line: If we want the taxes to go away, and we want the economy to "bounce back", we have to work with Obama, opposing every little issue doesn't do anything but slow the process down which will make the recession and taxes stick around longer. Ultimately, when the economy is "fixed" then I'm certain Obama will lessen taxes and most of the "revolution" sentiment will dry up. Why would he do this you ask? Simple, if there's no reason to tax, even if he wants to I'm sure it would be difficult to raise taxes without his approval rating disappearing, and possibly getting impeached. So I ask, why would someone spend money and time and hard work to become the President, just to screw the country they are a citizen of over? They wouldn't, simple.

[Dekar]

But in Germany we are shortly before the PIRATE REVOLUTION! ARR!
It can barely get worse when these old politicans get keelhauled.

[LeCitron]

But in Germany we are shortly before the PIRATE REVOLUTION! ARR!
It can barely get worse when these old politicans get keelhauled.

What's the basis of the Pirate Party again? I know it's all young people, but I can't remember what their platform is.

[Dekar]

Freedom of information.
Transparent state instead of transparent citizen.

And not to forget: Against "killergames" ban.

[DarnYak]

If we want the taxes to go away, and we want the economy to "bounce back", we have to work with Obama, opposing every little issue doesn't do anything but slow the process down which will make the recession and taxes stick around longer. Ultimately, when the economy is "fixed" then I'm certain Obama will lessen taxes and most of the "revolution" sentiment will dry up. Why would he do this you ask? Simple, if there's no reason to tax, even if he wants to I'm sure it would be difficult to raise taxes without his approval rating disappearing, and possibly getting impeached.

I'm trying to understand this: to get less taxes, we have to support more taxes? Assuming the taxes even go away, what part of that leads to lowing existing taxes?

Further, you don't seem to realize that government, once created, is perpetual and nearly impossible to remove. Social Security, for instance, was suppose to only be a temporary measure - now its seen as an entitlement. And taxes going away? Also damn near impossible. I can't find a link offhand, but I know we are still paying taxes to "pay off" the mexican war and the civil war. There's likely hundreds of more examples I can't find and nobody realizes that's where that part of taxes originated.

Hell, even one of Obama's campaign promises was to cut back on unnecessary branches of government. He supposidly did list something like $500m he wanted removed - I'm not sure it passed congress and even if it did its a token amount compared to the $5t budget itself.

DarnYak

[LeCitron]

I'm trying to understand this: to get less taxes, we have to support more taxes? Assuming the taxes even go away, what part of that leads to lowing existing taxes?

Further, you don't seem to realize that government, once created, is perpetual and nearly impossible to remove. Social Security, for instance, was suppose to only be a temporary measure - now its seen as an entitlement. And taxes going away? Also damn near impossible. I can't find a link offhand, but I know we are still paying taxes to "pay off" the mexican war and the civil war. There's likely hundreds of more examples I can't find and nobody realizes that's where that part of taxes originated.

Hell, even one of Obama's campaign promises was to cut back on unnecessary branches of government. He supposidly did list something like $500m he wanted removed - I'm not sure it passed congress and even if it did its a token amount compared to the $5t budget itself.

DarnYak

What I'm saying is that the reason taxes have recently spiked have been because of the attempts to "fix" the economy, ultimately then, if the economy is "fixed" then perhaps these taxes will be lessened and eventually the reason they were established will be fulfilled and they will become "obsolete", so to speak, and perhaps be lifted entirely. At the very least, taxes are less stressful when the economy is doing well, and most people tend to complain less about high taxes when they're not interfering with their lives as much (basically when you have more money and your economic future is safe, taxes at least are less stressful therefore people assume, sometimes, that they have dropped, although I put hope in them actually dropping at some point).

I'm not talking about government itself, I'm talking about taxes, which have been raised and lowered before, they're dynamic.

Also he promised to cut back on "unnecessary branches of government", which means in his eyes at least all of the spending he has done has been necessary (I doubt he'd change his own ideals from "we should cut unnecessary spending" to "we should increase unnecessary spending"). I wouldn't know if his budget cuts went through or not, whether his plan for budget cuts worked or not, it got overshadowed by the economic crisis we are currently in.

[Dekar]

Some years ago, the last election in Germany: The social party wanted to increase taxes by 1 point and the conservative party wanted to increased it by 2 points. In the end these 2 largest partys had to form a coalition due to rather bad results for both.
The result was a tax increase from 16% by 3 points to 19%.
With it they wanted to stop making new debts and ultimately reducing the old ones, what would have left us with lower taxes in (random guess) 400 years. But then came the financial crisis and we still accumulate more depths and have to bear these higher taxes.

I think we managed to make no new debts for a year or two.

[LeCitron]

Some years ago, the last election in Germany: The social party wanted to increase taxes by 1 point and the conservative party wanted to increased it by 2 points. In the end these 2 largest partys had to form a coalition due to rather bad results for both.
The result was a tax increase from 16% by 3 points to 19%.
With it they wanted to stop making new debts and ultimately reducing the old ones, what would have left us with lower taxes in (random guess) 400 years. But then came the financial crisis and we still accumulate more depths and have to bear these higher taxes.

I think we managed to make no new debts for a year or two.

Yeah, unfortunately the way the global economy has ended up being structured it almost seems like someone has to be in debt (I'm not saying if everyone somehow paid off their debts eventually that the global economy would collapse, but generally when a country has a crisis, it needs to borrow money from other countries to fix the problem, but borrowing money from anyone tends to only lead to more problems which take time to fix).

[Ford Prefect]

I don't know about other countries, but most of the United States debt is to ourselves (privately owned banks, for example). It would seem likely for other countries, though. After all, if England owes Germany money and Germany owes England money... well, that's an easy fix, isn't it?

[Dark_Nemesis]

A pretty interesting read. If public sentiment for Obama's plan and Obama himself continues to wane then the democrats may find their majorities in Congress/House of Rep. overthrown come 2010. They'll have to do some major changes and quit ignoring the growing voice of many Americans if they want to stay in power imo.

Ditto here.