How Today's Cons Lost Touch With Reality

**Detroitej72** · June-17-11, 07:29 PM

Interesting observations although I'm sure some cons on this board will dispute the conclusion.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...077943,00.html

**maxx** · June-18-11, 08:08 AM

What has happened to that tradition? Well, it has nothing to do with principles really. It has to do with the ability of public relations firms to convince the drooling masses, who just absorb TV without thinking, that businesses know what's best for the average person. We've tried tax cuts for the rich and they have done nothing for the economy. The rich are just sitting on all the money they made under Reaganomics. They don't need more yachts or mansions. And they certainly don't need to hire American workers when third world workers come so cheaply. What is the definition of craziness?

**Jimaz** · June-18-11, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

... It has to do with the ability of public relations firms to convince the drooling masses, who just absorb TV without thinking, that businesses know what's best for the average person.

Or could it be that public relations firms have been able to convince the non-drooling masses that the above has been accomplished when in reality it hasn't? It would serve the same demoralization goals consistent with other Shock Doctrine actions.

Granted they use anger to motivate non-thinkers. That has become abundantly clear but non-thinkers are in the minority despite what the media [[PR firms) would have us believe.

Originally Posted by maxx

The rich are just sitting on all the money they made under Reaganomics.

Yeah, I keep hearing the figure of 2 trillion private-sector dollars sitting on the sidelines not trickling down or trickling anywhere for that matter. What a waste. Those who are holding that cash are deliberately attempting to sabotage the economy, IMHO.

**oladub** · June-18-11, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Yeah, I keep hearing the figure of 2 trillion private-sector dollars sitting on the sidelines not trickling down or trickling anywhere for that matter. What a waste. Those who are holding that cash are deliberately attempting to sabotage the economy, IMHO.

I wonder if the 2 trillion you mention includes the $600,000,000,000 the Federal Reserve provided to foreign owned banks in the US and the $100,000,000,000 given to the IMF last year. I'm for getting rid of the politicians who let this happen irregardless of party. How about you?

**TKshreve** · June-19-11, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

I wonder if the 2 trillion you mention includes the $600,000,000,000 the Federal Reserve provided to foreign owned banks in the US and the $100,000,000,000 given to the IMF last year. I'm for getting rid of the politicians who let this happen irregardless of party. How about you?

A: That word should be rid from your vocabulary asap.

B: You couldn't be more off topic. This is about private sector piggy banks and how that money can and/but is not helping our country.

**oladub** · June-19-11, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by TKshreve

A: That word should be rid from your vocabulary asap.

B: You couldn't be more off topic. This is about private sector piggy banks and how that money can and/but is not helping our country.

Tshreve, Thank you for the grammar advice.

My response was clearly addressed to Jimaz and I think it was on target. The $600,000,000,000 provided to "private sector piggy banks' by the Federal Reserve to banks in the US owned by foreign interests. They were not required to keep all that money in this country any more than the $100,000,000,000 Obama provided to the IMF could have be expected to help our economy.

Instead of just critiquing other posts, maybe you could offer your own solution for getting 'private sector piggy banks' to use the '2 trillion private-sector dollars sitting on the sidelines' to benefit our economy and/or punish those in government, conservatives included, who allowed this to happen by introducing stupid giveaways which failed.

**Papasito** · June-20-11, 07:45 AM

We've tried tax cuts for the rich and they have done nothing for the economy.

That's not entirely true. Reagan began an era of prosperity after a dismal time in America at the hands of Jimmy "peanut" Carter, which ran through Bush I & Clinton's eras, then died in Bush II's with the housing collapse and 9/11.

Had 9/11 not happened, the economic picture with Bush II's tax cuts and other economic measures would have looked much different.

Unless you were living under a rock, you saw the economy and our nation's prosperity take major blows with the housing collapse, the tech bubble burst, 9/11 & Katrina. This was not a standard time in America where a simple tax cut would have made everything "all better". The pro-big-tax people on here imply that Bush II's tax cuts were a failure, but so was Obama's ++trillion "economic recovery plan". Both policies were set at a time when they would not make a difference, the moves were the wrong thing at the wrong time.

**maxx** · June-20-11, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

That's not entirely true. Reagan began an era of prosperity after a dismal time in America

Do you remember Reagan's S & L scandal when a lot of little people lost most of their savings? It wasn't as big as what we have now, but it should have been a warning that continued deregulation would lead to bigger problems.

Had 9/11 not happened, the economic picture with Bush II's tax cuts and other economic measures would have looked much different.

Bull! The Iraq war was planned in a rightwing think tank back in the mid 1990s. If 9/11 hadn't occurred, W and Co. would have found some other excuse to invade Iraq. As it was, they managed to invade Iraq on very flimsy arguments.

Unless you were living under a rock, you saw the economy and our nation's prosperity take major blows with the housing collapse, the tech bubble burst, 9/11 & Katrina. This was not a standard time in America where a simple tax cut would have made everything "all better". The pro-big-tax people on here imply that Bush II's tax cuts were a failure, but so was Obama's ++trillion "economic recovery plan". Both policies were set at a time when they would not make a difference, the moves were the wrong thing at the wrong time.

The housing collapse was the result of neocon deregulation over a couple decades. It wasn't some "act of God". And we didn't have to respond to 9/11 by going to war. But right after 9/11, righties like Lynn Cheney were calling anyone who dared suggest that U.S. policies might have contributed to the attack traitors.

As for Obama's economic recovery plan, show me one economist who doesn't think that our unemployment rate would have been much higher without it.

**maxx** · June-20-11, 04:00 PM

Jimaz: non-thinkers are in the minority despite what the media [[PR firms) would have us believe.

Do you think all those Fox watchers are thinking skeptically about the opinions Fox serves up?

**Jimaz** · June-20-11, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

Do you think all those Fox watchers are thinking skeptically about the opinions Fox serves up?

In general, no. But then that's their MO.

I also have no doubt that Fox "News" grotesquely exaggerates its own significance. But then that's their MO.

**ghettopalmetto** · June-21-11, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Had 9/11 not happened, the economic picture with Bush II's tax cuts and other economic measures would have looked much different.

Uh, what? Could you provide a link to your thesis that shows how 9/11 caused job creation to remain flat [[if not negative) in the face of massive tax cuts? From what I recall, air travel resumed the same week, with the exception of DCA.

Three months after 9/11/11, even the tourism industry in DC and New York--the hardest-hit sectors--had recovered.

And bear in mind, there was no "9/11" in 2003 when Bush's capital gains tax cuts were implemented. What's your excuse for poor job creation after 2003? I mean, didn't we just put billions of dollars back into the hands of the "job creators"???