Well, I think that the strategy is becoming obvious now..............

[socialist_n_TN]

There will be no economic reform. The rich will keep getting richer and the rest of us will continue getting poorer. The only sops we'll get is in the realm of some social progress. I expect marijuana to be legalized/decriminalized next in return for the repeal of Social Security. Of course, tokers and gays will be legally accepted, but won't be able to afford it.

Once again the capitalists find a way to divide the opposition.

[lonestarnot]

1. K & R!

[Go2Peace]

40. This is the world they want.

There will be some social progressive issues in the world of Darwinian Capitalism. But we will all fight each other for the "good life" and the majority will suffer.

[BobbyBoring]

47. It's funny

NOT! To see this right below Maddows Yes he did. Health care reform? Wait until everyone figures out what that's all about. Credit Card reform?? Well at least they have to tell you how bad they're screwing you every month. Wall St reform?? MUUUHAAAAAHAAAHAAAAA. If one of us got caught stealing a candy bar, we'd be off to the clunker. These pukes have stolen BILLIONS FROM US, destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, and Madoff is one of the few behind bars. The rest continue with business as usual.

What do you do when people are trying to kill or destroy you?? The answer goes way beyond everything I know about right and wrong but it's the only one~

[socialist_n_TN]

88. RE: Your last paragraph...........

My question is ALWAYS when does resistance become self defense? Most people everywhere believe in self defense. It's fine to resist, but at some point the depredations of capitalism become so egregious that resistance HAS to become self defense and is stepped up a level. What's that point?

[truedelphi]

2. I have been having the same sort of loopy thoughts myself.

The spouse was asking why it was that everywhere we went, most of the people we saw out and about were so happy. I reminded him that we live in a County where the harvest season is a big factor in how happy people are. And that this year, everyone growing the notorious weed was growing a lot. (I think many here thought Prop 19 would indeed take effect!)

Some are now making money legitimately selling the product to the medical marijuana clinics.

But I too fear marijuana won't be made totally legal until there is a way to make it so expensive that only the really rich can afford it.

Meanwhile, The RepliDemocans are worried that they won't be able to make that three million dollar business of theirs a long term success until they know for sure that the extended tax cuts to the rich are permanent.

Romney just had a huge article about the need for the cuts to be permanent.

Meanwhile, people like me, whose total income is between fifteen and seventeen K can expect a 1% hit on our taxes. I really wouldn't care about that so much, if I wasn't pretty sure that our pattern of becoming a Third World Banana Republic wasn't being laid out for all to see, brightly and clearly.

[msongs]

3. hey now GLBT can die for the corporate war profiteers n be out of the closet lol nt

[villager]

11. that's sort of the weird thing about the DADT "victory" -- now, as cannon fodder, you can be "out!"

It doesn't change the fact you're dying at the behest of corporations...

[socialist_n_TN]

23. BINGO! I'm a socialist and we're the ORIGINAL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

liberationists, in addition to being a personal practice libertarian, so I'm happy for ANY victory in the name of equality, BUT......... I want gays, women, Latinos, African-Americans, Native American, white working class people, indeed ALL oppressed peoples on MY side when we start fighting back and making it a REAL class war. Not the class massacre that it is now. Capitalists are killing us all, slowly or quickly, we might as well die for economic freedom for OURSELVES rather than the overlords.

And what people have got to realize is that the economic struggle is actually MORE important than any individual equality battles. Until we're all equal economically, the rest is just a side show.

[villager]

29. "class massacre" is well observed...

n/t

[Catherina]

60. I wish I could recommend your post. n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

89. Thanks! I try to call them like I see them.........

:)

[defendandprotect]

64. We've never had economic democracy ... but New DEAL was one of the greatest stimulus

citizens ever got --

Let me try this question on you --

We are all labor --

Why is unionizing confined to the workplace and why don't people just

general organize themselve into a union?

NATIONAL UNION HEADQUARTER ...

they come to us when they want labor -- WE decide the rate --

???

That's just one of life's little mysteries I've never understood --

though, presume there is a good reason and I just don't get it?

:)

[socialist_n_TN]

90. Maybe we just don't have the organizers anymore?......

I don't really know what the answer is EXCEPT organization and organization REQUIRES organizers. Trotsky was one of my revolutionary heroes and in addition to being a genius in strategy and tactics as well as Marxist theory, he was an organizational genius too. Where's our Trotsky?

A union for ALL the rest of us is a GREAT idea, BTW. Brotherhood of the Other 98%.

[defendandprotect]

99. Don't think we're short of organizers ... think we're short of ideas, new concepts -- !!

They've killed all the Trotsky's if you're saying where are our leaders?

In fact, the right wing political violence over the last 50 years -- beginning with

the coup on JFK -- has completely come out into the open -- and has taken not only

actual leadership -- but they're now taking out leadership before it actually arises.

True leaders get difficult for them to control -- so they'd rather not!



There is always a big argument around leaders -- many will argue you don't need them.

I find that wholly untrue -- we need leaders to speak for us -- to help spread new

creative positive ideas -- and we need the music and the musicians who also contribute

to leadership in many was -- notice how much of that has been taken away!

Leaders of any kind are a threat to those holding illegitimate power!!

[FogerRox]

33. Fight for your country, the one that wont let you get married

[dkf]

4. If the rich paid more taxes, how much better would your life be?

Exactly what do you think would change?

Or would you simply feel better because you know they are paying more?

[socialist_n_TN]

6. I'm a socialist. They'd pay a LOT more taxes...........

and we'd have Medicare for all, worker ownership of the means of production, better and more modern infrastructure, full government retirement pensions at 60, public employment for the long term unemployed, fully funded schools up to and through University and several other things I could come up with for the GENERAL welfare.

[dkf]

12. There is no one competent and honest enough to run a government like that.

[roody]

16. There are many competent and honest enough to do so.

[socialist_n_TN]

22. Bullshit. Of course there are. You just can't look............

for those types of managers where we've been looking in the last 30 years. They need to come from the working class, NOT the moneyied class. Those would be the people who would KNOW what a privledged position they would have (working FOR the people) and NOT expecting the job to be for their own aggandizement.

Now that said, of COURSE there would be some problems even among the working class managers, but I think enough oversight could be maintained to keep those problems to a minimum. Anyway, what's to lose? What we have isn't working. Try something else.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. BTW, since you're playing (?) apologist for the rich here.............

there's a question that I've never had answered to my satisfaction by the richies and their apologists. It's a simple one too. If we all have to "sacrafice" in the name of "austerity", why don't rich people have to sacrafice too? They've got most of the wealth of the country, why can't they sacrafice by kicking in a little bigger percentage of that wealth in the name of "sacrafice" and "austerity"?

[WinkyDink]

31. Speak for yourself.

[TBF]

37. Not on your side of the aisle, no, and frankly I don't think it will be possible to

do it with capitalism as the economic system.

[OnyxCollie]

44. For some reason, anyone competent and honest enough

is considered "unelectable."

We get the government we deserve, I guess. :shrug:

[rhett o rick]

51. Do you have a point? nm

[Selatius]

79. We used to have people like that, incidentally. Otherwise, FDR wouldn't be in history books. nt

[diane in sf]

82. Nonsense, most of Northern Europe functions competently like that.

[coalition_unwilling]

104. Hunh? I'm competent and honest enough to run a government like that.

[Scruffy1]

41. I second that-Socialist that I am

I just love to see someone speak up like you and put it into words. The usual replies from the brainwashed by corporate capitalism liberals make no sense. They keep thinking they can somehow make the capitalistic system work better when it is currently working almost perfectly. By its nature it concentrates wealth and power. the fact that the plutocracy gains a few members from outside once in a while doesn't change the nature of the plutocracy and the continued concentration of power in the world.

[socialist_n_TN]

43. It just fuckin' makes SENSE!.........

It's a "side of the angel" type thing , too. I think that sometimes you got to appeal to the BEST in people, not the worst.

[phleshdef]

56. That sounds to me like you just want to tax the rich for the hell of it.

And that kind of thinking is why the right wing always wins the politics on taxes.

The goal should never be to tax wealthy people just to tax wealthy people. The goal should be to tax more when we NEED more and tax less when we NEED less. We start with the rich because they stand to not really suffer from being taxed more, whereas middle class folk can actually be hurt by it. Right now, we have a deficit to get under control, so we need to tax more, so we should.

But if we had great surpluses and everything was paid for, then I wouldn't be calling for more taxation on the rich or anyone else. I'd be calling for tax cuts.

The sad thing is, if we would just cut the hell out of defense spending and stay out of foreign wars, we may not even really need to tax the rich or anyone at a higher level.

Regardless, liberals need to refine the message and stop allowing the other side to paint us as begrudgers of wealth who want to take your money simply because we don't want you to have it. That isn't the message and we shouldn't allow people to think that it is.

[defendandprotect]

67. You have to control the rich, otherwise their money gives them power of monopoly ....

and they do things like -- i.e., buy our legislators and elected officials --

buy our government --

Monopoly wealth isn't necesary to anyone's happiness -- and it is a danger to

us all --

Great -- cut the hell out of defense spending -- bring all the troops home --

who doesn't want that? End these perpetual wars behind which much crime is committed!

[phleshdef]

71. Making them less rich isn't going to cure any of those problems.

The system needs drastic campaign finance reform and maybe even a constitutional amendment to keep the right wing half the of Supreme Court from screwing that up. But taking money away from the wealthy isn't going to stop people from trading favors in politics.

[Selatius]

80. It would likely take a constitutional amendment to usher in publicly financed campaigns. nt

[Madam Mossfern]

91. I agree with you 100%

Let have each candidate have an equal amount of resources, then we can see how well they do with it. It would be so helpful on so many levels.

[defendandprotect]

97. Thom Hartmann has been working on that ... thru "Free Speech" ... they have a website ....

petitions -- and other stuff --

will try to come back with link later --

:)

[defendandprotect]

96. True.. we've always known that we have to keep corporations from any involvement

whatsoever in our elections --

but right wing control -- including over SC -- has now complicated our ability

to do that. It may take an amendment to the Constitution?

Corporations are created by government -- government is the parent --

which has control over the corporate entity.


People will always trade "favors" -- however, money creates new options, especially

when it can jump borders -- and that's been true since Nixon overturned Brettonwoods

Accords.


Money converts to power -- political power. When you limit wealth, you limit corrupt power.

And, as we can't hear too often ...

Behind every great wealth is great crime.

Look out at the world and try to deny that -- !!



:)

[socialist_n_TN]

92. It's never about taxing the rich just for taxation purposes...........

As defend and protect said, for one thing, it's about CONTROL of the rich and the only way to control the rich is to control their income. I'm a socialist because I believe the GOVERNMENT (representing the people's interests) should have control over the system (representing money in general, profit in particular) rather than the system having control over the government. If the system is capitalism, it's even MORE important because capitalism strives to concentrate wealth and destroy competition. That's it's SOLE AND ONLY goal. IOW, government= people, capitalism= money. Which would you trust?

But nowdays, it's also about redistributing this wealth down to people who have less and less. This concentration of wealth is an lose/lose proposition for EVERYBODY, even the capitalists. The thing about a capitalist is that THEY DON'T CARE! A capitalist actually WOULD sell the rope used to hang him BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HIS/HER SYSTEM LEADS TO organically. So, we either begin to redistribute this ever more concentrated wealth downward or we have a violent uprising. The easiest way to redistribute is by governmental taxation. The hardest way is to TAKE it. But easy or hard, eventually this will happen.

[defendandprotect]

66. and renewable energy ... probably much of it buried over the last 60 years ... !!!

and corporations PAYING for the unemployment they cause -- and for

destruction to the environment -- planet!!



:)

[Zax2me]

81. Wow, all that just for taxing the rich a lot more?

Sign me up!
But before I do, this Utopia...
What's the catch?
(There's always a catch)

[socialist_n_TN]

93. The "catch" is they won't give up their.........

priviledged position without a fight. There's enough wealth to do EVERYTHING I said and more for this country and the world AND even for some people to gain MORE wealth than others WITHOUT KILLING THE WHOLE GOOSE. But because of capitalism, concentration of wealth IS the ONLY goal.

Taxing the rich is the first step to this redistributing. As an example of what COULD be accomplished, imagine the Eisenhower years with taxation where it was (90%?) and no capitalist war, cold or hot, against socialism. Just a live and let live competition and let the best system win. Everything I stated above (and probably MORE) would have been possible.

[defendandprotect]

98. Agree with you -- and we have to remember that wealth comes from the nation itself ....

from natural resources, the government's ability to tax --

from many sources -- including citizens --

the reality, however, is that the few elites among us really don't want

to engage in "bus-i-ness" -- what they want is control over the nationa/government

which gives them total access to that wealth.

That's what it's all about --

Sovereign nations and their governments are being replaced by corporate/elite government --

money = power to do this --

The longer we cooperate with the corporate state, the more we are enriching our enemies!!




:)

[tabatha]

8. The taxes under Clinton were higher

and damn it, 23 million jobs were created and he left office with a surplus.

[dkf]

14. They were higher for us. We are the ones whose higher taxes made the difference

[druidity33]

24. That's BULL.

You need to see this chart:






and this one:






maybe something simpler:






Is the picture clearer now?



edited to get formatting right...

[BrklynLiberal]

62. Excellent charts! If the tbagers and the ignorant repuke minions could understand them, their heads

would explode.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. And that was fine as far as I was concerned............

I had a good job and some hope for retirement, albeit with a careful budget. I'm losing more and more hope of either of that. At least I still have a job, although not as good of one as I had in the 90s.

[obxhead]

10. It's about more than that and you know it.

One of the biggest things to me is the effect on the deficit. The republicans spent 2 years screaming about the deficit. They still scream about it claiming such nonsense such as we can't spend 7 billion for 9/11 responders without covering it. Somehow they get a complete pass when adding to the deficit for the smallest group that needs it the least though.

It's about a lot more than feeling better because they pay a tiny percentage more.

[dkf]

13. But the tax cuts for the top bracket was the small part of the tax cut.

The biggest part went to people that can't handle things even with the cut.

Taxes are the end result of a whole lot of other problems. I think it's hilarious that anyone sees taxing the top bracket 2 or 3% more or less is the solution or the problem.

[StarsInHerHair]

17. it's hilarious that this very thing helped the economic boom in the 1950s

but whatever:eyes:

[obxhead]

18. It's not a end all solution.

It would be far better for the country with those taxes paying for things instead of the debt the cut is creating, regardless of how small a part of the package it is.

[hfojvt]

20. ultimately it is more than 2 or 3%

see here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/126

and here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/123

For the top 1% the rate fell from 27% to 22.79%, but before Reagan the rate was higher at 33%. For the top 400 people the rate fell from 29.93% to 16.62%.

So the drops are much more than 3%. Of course, Democrats are not even trying to put the Reagan cat back in the bag, but getting one paw in would seem like a step forward.

And what do you mean by "the problem"?

Is the deficit/debt the problem, or is the problem ever increasing amounts of wealth and power flowing to the top?

I would say the problem is the latter. When I was growing up the bottom 50% collectively made more money than the top 1%. Now that is no longer true, and as we continue to move in that direction with regressive tax policies, then we continue the squeeze on the middle class and our slide into a third world country.

[Mafia Killer]

55. funny.

yea.....families living in the streets.
people like " W " who's never wanted for ANYTHING.
and asswipes that continue to work bluecollar....
but kiss corporate ass.
and muther fuk their own.

what a country.

[druidity33]

69. Really, you need to bone up on your math. nt.

[eridani]

21. How does a Monopoly game change when someone wins?

It stops, obviously. The only way you can keep playing is by taking the winner's money, dividing it up and starting a new game. Either the government does something about the concentration of wealth in this country, or we will be in a permanent depression due to completely flat demand.

[sendero]

27. The business elites..

... think they don't need the American consumer any more. They think they can just sell crap to China or India.

One wonders what the next step is when they find out China and India aren't as stupid as we are, allowing "free trade".

[russspeakeasy]

48. eridani....that about sums it up..thanks...

[BobbyBoring]

53. WOW!

How simplistic but dead on target! We have too many people with "Get out of jail free" cards and there's no $ in the "Free Parking" kitty.

[eridani]

78. True--it's oversimplified, like that old science fiction story about

--productivity increasing so much that a single worker produces everything in the world. One day he quits. One useful thing about the Monopoly analogy is that far more people have played Monopoly than have read Das Kapital. It should go without saying that starting a new game isn't "punishing the winner," but the only way to keep playing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. This. n/t

[WinkyDink]

30. Do you think "rich" means a mere deci-millionaire? WE HAVE BILLIONAIRES HERE.

YES, OUR LIVES WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF THEY PAID 70% OR MORE IN TAXES.

[DeSwiss]

42. We'd all be millionaires, for one.

Capitalism is CANCER. And Capitalists are the mutant cells in the body of society that cause it.

[droidamus2]

49. I don't know but...

The rich paid a hell of a lot more in the 1950's and 1960's (91% tax rate over $200,000.00)and economically those times seemed pretty damn good for the middle class. So my guess is times would be much better for the lower and middle classes and I would be mighty pleased to see the money grubbing, greedy, selfish bastards paying a s@#$t load more in taxes.

[rhett o rick]

50. Maybe we could have enough money to pay for decent health care, help our seniors, reduce our horribl

horrible infant mortality rate, keep our bridges and levees from failing, give vets decent benefits, etc. The list goes on and on. How about creating jobs?

The trillions the socio-pathetic super-rich are skimming could do a lot of good for our country. Instead they are investing in China and India and NOT PAYING TAXES.

Giving future generations money to the super-wealthy is the path to disaster. May they rot in hell.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. Let's take Washington state for an example

Washington state relies on sales and property taxes. The poorest citizens pay 17% of their income in state taxes. The richest citizens pay 5%.

Washington's voters just defeated a measure sponsored by Bill Gates' dad that would have placed a modest income tax on those richest citizens.

A couple of weeks ago, Governor Gregoire told us what that means.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013685184_budget16m.html

OLYMPIA — Gov. Chris Gregoire had four words to summarize the state spending plan she proposed Wednesday that would dump programs for the poor, slash education, close prisons and reduce ferry runs.

"I hate my budget," she said, her voice shaking with emotion.

"I hate it because in some places I don't even think it's moral," she said. "Who'd have ever thought that I would be doing this."

State Arts Commission, gone.

State Tourism Office, gone.

The Basic Health Plan, which provides subsidized insurance for the 66,000 working poor, gone.

Also eliminated: Disability Lifeline, a program that provides cash payments to thousands of disabled poor; programs for gifted students in public schools; McNeil Island Corrections Center; and the Maple Lane School for juvenile offenders in Rochester.

Tuition at colleges and universities would continue to increase at a double-digit pace to partially offset across-the-board cuts.

Money for state parks from the operating budget — a major source of overall parks funding — would be nearly eliminated in two years. Park visitors would pick up a larger share of the tab.

Ferry service would be trimmed, while fares would climb 10 percent.

"This is a budget that is meant for the worst economic downturn in eight decades. It uses the word 'eliminate' about 80 times," Gregoire said at a news conference.

*This* is what happens when you refuse to tax the 25% of the people who make 70% of the income.

You are becoming a one-trick pony.

[jimlup]

5. Thank you...

:kick: and rec

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. It's yuppie democracy

It's really Libertarianism more than traditional Democratic values.

[socialist_n_TN]

Agreed. It what a traditional libertarian would believe.............

Of course with most libertarians, the economic freedoms have to come before the personal ones. And for some reason the personal freedoms are always JUST out of reach. It's even attractive to me because I am a left libertarian. Personal issues aren't the government's business. HOWEVER, I'm a socialist economically. I trust the people, when they're actually REPRESENTED by the government, more than I do business.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. Dupe

Edited to remove duplicate post.

[WiffenPoof]

15. Yep...Pretty much correct n/t

[c14444c]

19. If social security cuts are inevitable

If social security cuts are inevitable, then we don't have a democracy.

If social security cuts are inevitable, simply because our "best and brightest" believe it to be so, then we don't have a democracy.

This point needs to be raised over and over again.

Defense of social security, when the vast majority wants it to be preserved intact, is about defending democracy.

[Enthusiast]

34. Clearly there are no such concerns

about preserving social security.

[sendero]

25. That's pretty much it..

... bon appetit

[blindpig]

32. That's the reform...

the final evisceration of the New Deal.

And now back to Capitalism, which is already in progress.

Pot could be decriminalized, Big Tobacco has been kicked to the curb, Big Pharma got the gift of "health care reform" and the Religious Right is in eclipse in the Republican Party as the libertarians ride high.

[felix_numinous]

35. Another way to look at this

Is that the great efforts by gay activists and marijuana legalization activists had positive results. This strategy has to be applied to everything else we need to accomplish--keep applying pressure until we get results. What other choice do we have?

[socialist_n_TN]

38. This is true. And I can't say that....................

I'm unhappy about ANY of the positive things that have come about. I've been fighting the pot legalization battle for 40+ years and the gay rights battle ever since it came into my consiousness probably 30+ years ago. I just think that this kind of tradeoff is, at BEST, a net loss. We trade economic security and accelerate the wealth disparity that's KILLING the bottom 98% for things that should be no brainers and probably would have happened anyway. Public acceptance of gay rights and marijuana reform would have brought these things about eventually anyway.

Also true that there's nothing else to do but keep applying pressure. Unfortunately, fighting the capitalists who are killing us at a more and more rapid pace will take more than applying pressure like we did on the gay rights front. We don't HAVE 40+ years before the our enviroment is unlivable because of capitalist depradations.

[immoderate]

36. Keep your eye on the Gini Index.

It's a measure of distribution.


Our Gini Index is getting into the high forties, about where it was in 1929. In evaluating policy, I ask what it does to the Gini. It's urgent that we get the number down by 10 points to assure a sustainable economy. Result of all Obama era policies is to let the money continue to flow to the very rich. He's done nothing to bring the Gini number down. (Check out what's happening in China.)

Note: This is not the ONLY thing, but a lot of information is rolled into that number. :)

--imm

[BobbyBoring]

54. Good Example

I used to spend a lot of time in Mexico in the 70s. I was in the "Import Business" At that time and now, most of Mexicos problems were caused by the fact that 2 or 3% had 98% of the dough and the rest had diddly. Lo and behold, here we are~

[immoderate]

58. Welcome to DU!

Trade is good. :smoke:

--imm

[socialist_n_TN]

94. I won't ask what you imported............

:) I probably enjoyed some of your product! :)

[DeSwiss]

39. K&R

Merry Christmas!

- Be like Jesus, whip a moneychangers ass today!!!!!

[socialist_n_TN]

95. BTW DeSwiss I LOVE your Christmas tag line..............

I laugh every time I look at it. And it's SO true. The moneychangers made profit off of money, the CLASSIC capitalists and they were the ONLY ones the Bible says that Jesus went after in a physical (some might say revolutionary) fashion. Anyway, thanks for that.

[coalition_unwilling]

105. Awesome, just awesome! (picture and caption) - n/t

[Francisco]

45. Actually I have faith that Obama and the Repubs..

can work out some kind of tax reform and move the tax brackets in a way that can satisfy both parties to least raise taxes on the top 1% and close some loopholes. We'll see.

[hay rick]

52. Betting against. nt

[totodeinhere]

57. No, the Repubs will NEVER agree to any kind of tax increase for the super rich. n/t

[egoclothes]

59. Repugs will NOT raise taxes on the top 1%. (IMHO)

[WinkyDink]

84. Your "HO" (hee) is well-supported by history!

[BrklynLiberal]

63. If you are ever in my area, I have this really great bridge I can sell you...CHEAP!!

[me b zola]

46. I too have come to this conclusion

and is why I embrace the 'resist' movement.

[BrklynLiberal]

61. We are being taken back to the days of bread & circus for the plebians.

[JackRiddler]

72. You mean, without the bread.

[BrklynLiberal]

83. You are correct. I stand corrected. Media circus..no bread.

[WinkyDink]

85. It will be pot and circuses.

[Zax2me]

65. K&R....

WELL.
Said....

[SidDithers]

68. ...

Utter drivel.

Sid

[JEB]

70. Tax the rich

and they will seek tax write offs by HIRING people. Cut their taxes and they squirrel it away.

[lefty2000]

75. They Will Not Always Win -- Ecclesiastes 9:11

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

[salinen]

76. This "let them eat cake"

environment is very obvious, to me anyway. Just as you say too. We will soon be peasants. That's the way it ALWAYS happens.

[jotsy]

77. Happy holiday!

Renegade economist and author Michael Hudson, gave Real News Network a great interview about the agenda and the nature of the beast. The sooner we make our own way the better!!!

<http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6002>

I rec'd this, yesterday.

[xchrom]

86. +1

[lunatica]

87. Hudson explains it in crystal clear language

The parasite simply moves to another country to continue sucking the life out of their economies after it's done with this one.

[socialist_n_TN]

100. And because that patasite simply moves..............

(ALWAYS true, but never more true than today) that's why we need and international worker's movement. Another think that SOME of the old Bolsheviks presaged. It CAN'T be just based in one country because the capitalists aren't just in one country.

[felix_numinous]

101. I agree

that effective resistance to these corporate entities has to be an international effort, somehow.

I think that is what has many people flummoxed, that Americans alone cannot effectively oppose these corporations--we need international solidarity. The problem lies in the fact that we would have to work around the MIC, who have totally FUBAR'd our foreign relations, and with total information awareness in place....:)

[socialist_n_TN]

102. Well it never has been easy. Even the Bolshies.........

under Stalin gave a short shift to the "Internationalist" part of the worker's movement trying to keep at least ONE Marxist state going. Wikileaks COULD be a precursor of an international movement, IMO. Also, with the Intertubes and all we have a MUCH better way to trade info and tactics/strategies now than we've ever had before.

These kinds of discussions help IMO. We're still in the agitation/education stage and there's a LOT of good ideas that get tossed out when we talk about it.

[Odin2005]

103. The PTB are using social issues as barganing chips to keep us mollified.

[socialist_n_TN]

106. Yes and it DOES create a conundrum for.............

those of us who are left libertarian. And that's the plan. It's another divisor for the lower classes and others who might support our cause.

As I stated above I'm REALLY happy to see some progress on issues that I've been on the losing side of for DECADES, but I also look at the cost of these gains. What we're giving up economically results in a net loss IMO. Social equalities will ALWAYS organically follow economic equality.