Joe Scarborough Speaks Unspeakable Truth Re Fact That Republican Policies Benefit The Wealthy & Hurt Everyone Else

Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate ~ David Stockman (dob 11/10/1946) former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under preznit Ronny Raygun.

The following soundbite via the 3/6/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Program.

Morning Joe: The problem with the Republican Party over the past 30 years is they haven't (I'll say we haven't) developed a message that appeals to the working class economically in the way that Donald Trump has. We talk about cutting capital gains taxes - the 10k people who are in the crowd cheering for Trump - they're never going to get a capital gains cut, because it doesn't apply. We talk about getting rid of the death tax [estate tax]. The death tax isn't going to impact these people. We talk about how great free trade deals are? Those free trade deals never trickle down to those 10k people. Herein lies the problem with the Republican Party. It never trickles down. Those 10k in Trump's crowd, those are the people who lost jobs when they were moved to Mexico. The Republican donor class were the ones that got rich off it because their capital moved overseas and they made higher profits.

And the American people are finally figuring that out... according to Thom Hartmann. I'm not 100 percent sure of this. I think this realization explains why Bernie Sanders is doing so well. Yeah, it looks like Hillary will be the nominee, but the fact that a democratic socialist Jew is actually making a good showing against the establishment's choice? I think that says a LOT regarding the voters FINALLY waking up to the fact that Republican policies favor the wealthy and that the economic system that works so well in Europe (and worked so well under FDR) is something we should be doing more of (The 12 best reasons to be a democratic socialist).

That free trade benefits the "Republican donor class" is why Hillary Clinton was forced to backtrack on the TPP. Previously she referred to it as the "gold standard" and now she is saying she doesn't support it (45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes).

Yet, Trump says he's a "free trader", he'd just negotiate better deals. But he is not for ANY of the other pro-rich policies that never "trickle down" to the non-wealthy. Trump is proposing MASSIVE tax cuts for the wealthy with a 15% max tax rate, no "death tax" and no corporate tax (Donald Trump's Tax Plan Would Make the Rich Richer, Uncle Sam Poorer).

Clearly the Trumpeteers are NOT figuring it out. And (imo) Hillary voters aren't figuring it out either. She's moved to the Left, but she's been pushed there by Sanders (and likely not stay there after elected). Hillary is not a Progressive, but a moderate. In her own words! (HRC 9/10/2015: "You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty").

If people actually were figuring it out Donald Trump wouldn't be poised to claim the nomination on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be winning on the Democratic side. And primary voting turnout wouldn't be "massive" on the Republican side, it would be MASSIVE on the Democratic side (Here's Just How Massive Republicans' Super Tuesday Turnout Was).

And the massive turnout would be for Bernie Sanders. He's a once in a lifetime candidate, IMO. The country NEEDS Bernie Sanders. Hillary might be OK and push some incremental change. Trump (or any other of the Republicans) would further harm our nation (Bernie Sanders Is a Once in a Lifetime Presidential Candidate. The Time Is Now).

Under a Sanders' presidency income and jobs would soar. This is according to Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor. His analysis shows that, under Sanders, "median income would soar by more than $22k, nearly 26 million jobs would be created and the unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%".

BTW, that tool Chuck Todd says (when Scarborough is speaking) "you sound like Bernie Sanders". Clearly upChuck was taken off guard by Scarborough's honesty. Honesty Thom Hartmann found astounding. Yeah, me too.

Video: Joe Scarborough gives up the game: After 30 years, the GOP base realized "it never trickles down" by David Edwards. RawStory 3/8/2016 (6:55, 1:25-2:30 for Scarborough comments).

SWTD #331

Unbelievable Idiocy From Wing Dinger of A Libertarian Lunatic

What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy? ~ George Orwell (6/25/1903 to 1/21/1950)... Eric Arthur Blair was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic known by his pen name George Orwell. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and commitment to democratic socialism.

The following post from Libertarian lunatic wing dinger Willis V. Hart, via his blog.

Willis Hart: On the Lunatic Left and War Criminals... Call George W. Bush (an admittedly ineffectual President) a war criminal and then quote mass murderer Joseph Stalin, not to underscore the evil of the madman but his good 'ol common sense. Thoroughly unbelievable. (2/25/2014 at 2:47pm).

This because I posted the following quote by Joseph Stalin on another blog where the topic at hand was "political quotes to ponder". Quote as follows...

Joseph Stalin: Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.

The quote doesn't continue from there with "and the way to right this wrong is by subjecting the people to the rule of an elite class who will live like kings by stealing from the people and also murdering millions of them". That would represent the truth of what Stalin did, but he promised to right the wrong he describes with this quote in another manner. Obviously Stalin lied to the people. Now, that does not change the fact that the quote DOES represent a "fundamental fact", even if a mass murdering madman said it.

So, what the eff is Willis' problem? Likely he agrees with his buddy Dennis who remarked that Stalin is my "hero". No, his problem (which I didn't know before) is articulated with yet another commentary that he posted 2 hours and 13 minutes after the first one.

Willis Hart: On Buttressing Your Opinion Via Quoting Joseph Stalin... Call me old fashioned but once a person slaughters over 40 MILLION people, I really don't give a rat's ass what the fiend thinks about ANYTHING, and it astonishes me beyond comprehension how anybody would. Really. (2/25/2014 at 5:00pm).

Now I understand the Hartster's mistake... I wasn't "buttressing my opinion" by posting the quote, asshole. While I do agree with the fundamental fact contained within the quote, if I had actually been presenting an argument (or attempting to "buttress my opinion") I wouldn't have quoted Stalin (for obvious reasons). I posted it because I was curious as to the reaction it would get. I never figured it would result in 2 posts from Mr. Hart, as well as a decelaration that my posting the Stalin quote "creeps me out the most" from the idiot.

OK, I don't even know why this should be necessary, but let me say that I condemn the murdering that took place under both bush and Stalin. Both lied and presided over murdering for which they are (or will) surely burn in hell for (and yes, I am aware that more people were murdered under Stalin). Quoting someone is NOT an endorsement of them, nor is it the same as declaring said person to be your "hero".

That Willis persists with these vile lies, even after I issued a clarification for the half-wits who concluded that a quote sans any commentary was the same as me saying I admired the murdering under Stalin.

And I didn't say anything when Lester and Dennis both quoted the sociopath Ayn Rand. And I do know at least one of them believes in this POS and her "greed is a virtue" evilness... evil that includes referring to those who accept government assistance as "parasites" and "leeches".

I'm not afraid to call out evil when I encounter it; as with Rand, who fantasized about killing a train full of parasites and leeches (and their enablers) in her weighty tome "Atlas Shrugged" (AS).

when a railway worker in AS decides to punish the wicked socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist government that is being justly punished... [one victim was] an elderly school teacher who who spent her life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil..." And so endlessly on, through over a dozen deserving victims. "There was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas", she notes - so let them burn. (excerpt from a 3/10/2009 HuffPo article by Johann Hari).

I also call out the evil of Stalin, a wicked liar who preyed upon his countrymen who only desired fairness and a life in which they were the ones who benefited from the fruits of their labors. And the evil of George W bush, a man who greatly desired a war with Iraq so he could gain political capital (and hand out "reconstruction" money to his cronies) - and lied about WMD that Saddam didn't have - and scared the American people with imaginings of mushroom clouds - to get it.

In conclusion I'd like to say Willis can take his "creeped out" BS and shove it. Stalin also said "one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic", and there is truth in that... but I surely am not "buttressing my opinion" that mass murder is a inconsequential thing in quoting him.

The vile liar Dennis can take his absurd accusations of "Stalin worship" and stuff them even further.

The quote at the top of my post is a "buttressing of my opinion", BTW. George Orwell, author of "Animal Farm" and a democratic socialist, was an outspoken critic of Joseph Stalin. Wikipedia notes that Orwell was "actively opposed to the controversial ideology of Stalinism. The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror".

For the record I am in agreement with Orwell... on lunatics (like Willis V. Hart) as well as in regards to Stalin. Also in regards to his support for democratic socialism.

See also: Dennis Lies Concerning "Heroes" That Are Not Heroes (TADM #5) 2/23/2014.

SWTD #235, wDel #51.

On The Utter Ridiculousness Of A Libertarian Citing A Socialist Country As Proof That His Economic Theories Unequivocally Equal Success

If we put our trust in the common sense of common men and "with malice toward none and charity for all" go forward on the great adventure of making political, economic and social democracy a practical reality, we shall not fail ~ Henry A. Wallace (10/7/1888 to 11/18/1965) the 33rd Vice President of the United States (1941–1945). In the 1948 presidential election, Wallace was the nominee of the Progressive Party. His platform included an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance.

What does the Socialist Democracy of Sweden prove as far as Libertarian economics goes? According to a recent blog post by the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart, Sweden shows Libertarian economics rule and Socialism stinks. Argument as follows...

Willis Hart: In the early 1960s, total government spending in Sweden was approximately 30% of GDP and Sweden was the 4th wealthiest country in the world. By the early 1990s, government spending had literally doubled to 60% of GDP and Sweden fell all the way to 17th in terms of wealth. Yes, the Swedes eventually scaled back on some of this spending and they also cut back significantly on regulations (two factors that greatly helped their economy) but how anybody out there can still say that what they did in the '70s and '80s was good for the economy is well beyond me. (The Massive Cost of a Bloated Welfare State, 1/7/2014 AT 7:42pm).

What is beyond me is that a Libertarian would cite Sweden as proof that the economic theories they subscribe to equal success while Socialism equals failure. The government spending of Sweden (as a percentage of GDP) is STILL 52 percent (as of 2011), according to the Investopedia article Countries With The Highest Government Spending To GDP Ratio. The same article reports that in the United States "total government expenditures as percentage of GDP totaled 35% in fiscal 2010. This includes both Federal and State spending and off budget items as well".

Now, it appears as though Mr. Hart could be correct in that very high levels of government spending in Sweden did not leave room for the private sector to grow. However, while Willis puts forward the argument that Progressives make the "assertion that austerity invariably leads to a bad economy", that is a strawman (Progressive make no such assertion).

Keynesian economics does NOT say government spending should ALWAYS be increased in times of economic downturn, even if it is already high. Private sector spending is always preferable to government spending, and a government that monopolized it's country's economy would KILL the private sector. Sweden decreased government spending, allowing it's private sector to expand, and that helped it recover from an economic downturn.

Comparing Sweden (with it's high government spending) to the US (with it's much lower spending) and saying because Sweden didn't destroy it's private sector in response to an economic downturn... that this disproves Keynesianism? Utterly ridiculous. The downturn, BTW, was caused by the kind of liberalization Willis advocates, as noted by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)...

NBER, in a 2010 paper "Reforming the Welfare State: Recovery and Beyond in Sweden": The immediate causes for Sweden's early 1990s crisis are similar to those that set off America's late 2008 crisis: the deregulation of financial markets and excessive credit expansion fueled a real estate bubble that burst, causing a contraction of economic activity that spread from the banking sector to the economy as a whole.

In response to this downturn Sweden increased government spending to "above 70 percent of national income". So, While it is true that Sweden eventually cut spending and loosened some regulations... and afterward their economic situation improved (as Willis notes), Sweden remains one of THE MOST Socialist countries on the planet with levels of government spending (as a percentage of GDP) that far exceeds spending by our government.

Furthermore, as concluded by the NBER report cited above, Sweden pragmatically dealt with "policy blunders"... i.e. Libertarian/Conservative deregulation and not their "bloated welfare state" (although it was a factor that government spending held back private sector growth). But the sparking of the downturn can be directly attributed to liberalization and deregulation and NOT Socialism.

One of the accomplishments of the Socialist approach of the Swedish government that is "beyond" the Hartster, as reported by NBER, is as follows...

NBER: Much of what American outsiders saw in Sweden puzzled them. They found it remarkable that Sweden had eliminated poverty through interventions in markets without running into serious economic problems before the crisis.

The bottom line is that the Liberalization advocated by the likes of Mr. Hart often causes bubbles followed by bubble burstings, recessions, and always increases inequality and deepens poverty. On the other hand, the right balance of Socialism and Liberalization with the addition of smart regulations and government interventions leads to economic stability and greater equality... or an economy that benefits everyone, not just the plutocrats. Some may find that "puzzling", but they're the ones who believe economic success starts at the top, and so we must take care of the wealthy and the business community first (by subsidizing their labor expenses, for example).

So, Sweden a case study that proves Libertarian economics? I say "hell no". Citing as an example the socialist democracy of Sweden (with it's government spending as a percentage of GDP FAR above that of the US even after they scaled back a bit) as proof that Liberalization is the key to economic success and that a "bloated welfare state" leads to economic ruin is, IMO, a TOTAL strawman. The Swedish government had to "bloat" it's spending DRAMATICALLY before it choked off private sector growth. They reduced it somewhat following a downturn caused by TOO MUCH deregulation and the economy improved. The lesson we should learn from the example of Sweden is that Social Democracy and a mixed economy (as advocated by Progressives) yields the best results.

Postscript: The quote at the top of my blog posting, is, I believe an excellent response to the comment by fellow Libertarian blogger rAtional nAtion (left in response to Willis' commentary), which is...

rAtional nAtion: In democratic socialist nations the rulers still have to be elected. Do I see America trotting further into democratic socialism? You can bet I do. (1/7/2014 AT 8:00pm).

I seriously hope you are right Mr. nAtion, although I think we're quite a way away from putting "our trust in the common sense of common men" given the fact that one of the major political parties (and one minor one; i.e. Libertarians) are putting their trust in the self interest of the wealthy elites and believing THAT is what will save us ("rational self interest", greed as a virtue and all the similar hogwash that the rAtional oNe and Willis Hart subscribe to).

SWTD #223, wDel #44.