Third Party & Independents Archives

Desperately Seeking A 3rd Party, With A Diff Pol . . .

With the passing of time more people are letting the words ‘3rd party’ trill across their lips. Me too, and for good reason.

Corpocracy continues ‘pedal to the metal’ with globalisation. The Washington Post carries an article that “Pentagon contracts go global.” In order for the monopolies/conglomerates to push their way into foreign countries the US must give till it hurts as a sort of subsidy. Of course, foreign corps see the Pentagon as the biggest grape to squeeze and congress is signing them up for military contracts. Says Faun Trackway, builder of roadways and landing strips, a Welsh company, “The American market is the largest …. So we want to be here.” Swedish defense company, Saab-AB is doubling its D.C. staff, has purchased a US company and looking for new acquisitions. The EUR EADS, an aviation company, is also looking to share in the Pentagon’s grape vineyard.

From the US Defense Dept, “Globalization of our market is not an option. It is a reality.” “ We are committed to continue opening our markets while at the same time strike the appropriate balance with security concerns.” Sounds like the Pentagon needs more companies in the competition. Must be something they can’t get from Boeing/Lockheed/Grumman, etc. Maybe they could get more companies in the competition by busting up the big ones and making several little ones. But, then again, maybe China and others could use some US military technology. I don’t think China is allowing any business in unless they are willing to divulge the family jewels in the process. So far as I know China hasn’t received any significant Pentagon contracts, yet. But, we can be sure that globalisation will reach out and touch them at some point. After all, the Pentagon vineyard is like a sweet wine waiting to ferment. Maybe this is just a big trade off. Bring a few troops home from Japan, Kor., Ger., and pump any savings back out in military contracts to effected nations. Your tax dollars at work, and the US doesn’t do well on negotiations and trade off’s.

The Army Corp of Engineers has already tested Faun’s roadways. I guess that means they meet the specs of roadways that was built by US companies at one time or other.

Clear, that the Corpocracy will pursue globalisation wherever it takes us. The debt seems a micro speedbump, not a problemo. The ‘deal’ appears to be nothing more than business as usual. By kicking the can down the road we can expect to see the deficit rise to about $20T by 2021. The 20T represents a great headlock placed on the consumer/taxpayer designed to wrestle you to the ground and ensure you will be glad to sign on for $5-8/hr wages downstream.

Walter Pincus wrote an article for the Wash Post expounding on one Republican, Tom Coburn’s (OK), contention that we could save $9T over a decade by cutting corporate welfare. Strange words coming from a Republican but he sounds respectable. Tom alludes that corporate welfare was designed to compensate for the “high” corporate tax rate.

He cited an example of special treatment for financing low income communities. A Wachovia Bank subsidiary received $521M in tax credits and an additional $204M that went to two divisions of Chase Bank between 2004-09. $15.5M went to Providential Financial, a life insurer, to subsidize the renovation of the Marriott’s Blackstone Hotel in Chicago. Coburn cites $3.5B output in 2009 that are “not seemingly intended to benefit low-income regions.”
Coburn would like to do away with tax provisions that benefit the wealthy. He notes that individuals making over one million a year received over $7B in tax relief through mortgage interest deductions in one year alone. Real strange talk from a Republican.

One of my favorites is that a company who moves overseas can write off the cost of their relocation, also their foreign advertising.

Could we not just have a flat tax void of all deductions?

It does leave one pining for a 3rd party, but not just any 3rd party.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at August 1, 2011 10:41 PM
Comments
Comment #326906

Roy writes; “Could we not just have a flat tax void of all deductions?

It does leave one pining for a 3rd party, but not just any 3rd party.”

A flat tax would be my preference as well.

As for a third party, I don’t see that as helping at all. We really don’t have political parties any more, but rather, coalitions of voters aligned and characterized according to the programs from which they benefit. Instead of democrats or republicans, Americans are retirees, veterans, farmers, teachers, investors, union members, students, and more.

We have become a nation of spending constituencies and in doing so we have lost a piece of our individual identity and become more complacent about the role of government in our lives.

The number of Americans receiving some kind of government financial support, from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm payments, housing subsidies, food vouchers, and all kinds of tax preferences, totals nearly 75% of all Americans.

Few Americans would agree that dependence on government support is a good or positive thing, and yet, none would willingly give up the government support they currently receive.

How would a third party change this? It wouldn’t. Weening ourselves from government dependence is the only solution.

Excerpts taken from the Commentary section of Time Magazine, August 8, 2011.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 2, 2011 2:42 PM
Comment #326908


I am all for eliminating child deductions. Those cost me significantly more in taxes than my earnings peers who had them. As an individual, the tax laws had me at a disadvantage.

Do as I say, not as I did? A flat tax would raise taxes for a majority, not lower them. Young people with children might not take to kindly to older people, who have raised their kids with those tax advantages, desiring to eliminate them.

Posted by: jlw at August 2, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #326917

RF, agree that the tax code is sliced and diced to bringing contentious constituencies to the table for their representatives. And, congress takes your tax dollars and funnels them back to the states with strings attached. Then, there is corporate welfare, leading to oligarchy/Corpocracy.
The FAA took a minor hit as fallout from the deficit debate whereby small, underserved airports that have been receiving subsidies of as much as $1k per ticket has seen that money dry up. Congresspersons, who want to fly home to Podunk, wherever are all but outraged about it. I have never wanted to fund cheap air travel for anyone.

But, we do need a flat tax. Start out at 17% and if revenue is plentiful the rate can be reduced.

RF, you site some good reasons why we need a 3rd party. But, there won’t be a flat tax, campaign finance reform, balanced budget amendment, or access to Article V Convention so long as the Corpocracy is running the show.

We need a 3rd party to be able to blow away the money influence by abolishing Corporate Personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform. The other stuff would be easy.

Jlw, if we had fewer people we would need fewer roads, hospitals, airports, etc. We are a developed country. At present we are an over-developed country, years of homes on the market, stagnant/negative growth for years to come with this deficit around our neck, jobless numbers grow each month and will continue to grow into the future, again due to the deficit. We don’t need tax deductions for having children. I believe that if people were informed on the flat tax they would vote for it, federal and state.
Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 2, 2011 6:50 PM
Comment #326920

Roy writes; “We need a 3rd party to be able to blow away the money influence by abolishing Corporate Personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform. The other stuff would be easy.”

I don’t believe enough constituencies of government, nearly 75% of all Americans, would come together for any reason other than to continue the benefits they are receiving.

A single issue third party, “focusing on abolishing Corporate Personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform”, will never compete with parties offering continuing and increasing government benefits.

An enlightened electorate would be attracted to your third party ideas, but we don’t have one.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 2, 2011 7:09 PM
Comment #326925

A third party only guarantees the socialist to control Congress for decades to come.

What conservatives need to do is to continue to reclaim the Republican Party.

Posted by: Mike at August 2, 2011 9:16 PM
Comment #326928

I think it will come down to the level of pain, misery and susbistance living. Over the next two-three years this debt thing will start to sink in, and the jobs numbers are going to worsen as well. The Corpocracy may put up a CCC type jobs program which will buy them some time.

Imagine, greatest/wealthiest nation dredging up a depression era jobs program. And the wealthy won’t miss a beat through it all. I assume the Corpocracy has no choice but to extend unemployment. Either that or stand up soup lines.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 2, 2011 9:55 PM
Comment #326997


Roy, Mike is right, the only way to stop the socialists and insure the preservation of the corpocracy is for conservatives to unite and make the Republican Party the only party with political power. We must deny the socialists a political voice before they destroy America.

The all out propaganda assault on socialist thinking must continue until every member of the middle class is convinced that it is the poor and their socialist enablers who are the middle classes real enemies. They have enlarged and diluted the true middle class by taxing the deserving to service the undeserving.

Roy, the progressives will have to pry a CCC work program out of the cold dead hands of conservatives. Contrary to popular belief, a Great Depression is not to high a price to pay if it denies the socialist a second term.

“We need a third party to be able to blow away the money influence by abolishing Corporate Personhood law and implement real campaign reform laws.”

Royal said, “An enlightened electorate would be attracted to your third party ideas, but we don’t have one.”

Royal, ask Roy which sites he most often uses as source material for his campaign against Corporate Personhood and for election reform. There is a small but enlightened electorate, but it doesn’t include many moderates, and only a token few conservative and libertarian types. They are called progressives.

You are not going to see these issues on any liberal or conservative political planks.

Not once, in any of those tea party rallies, where there signs or speeches demanding an end to corporate person or demanding election reform.

Enlightened conservatives? Progressive conservatives? Both are oxymorons.

Posted by: jlw at August 4, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #327040

I advocate for restoring sovereignty, democracy, and the democratic princples we once lived by.

To do so we must recognize THE major problem and move to address it.

IMO, the most major is Corporate Personhood law. Corpocracy has overtaken sovereignty and democracy. Corporations have replaced the people re representative government. We do have the best gov’t corporate money can buy.

The only way to remove the money influence from gov’t/politiics is to abolish corporate personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform.

This will take a 3rd party with a diff political attitude. A party with a specific, narrow agenda to abolish corporate personhood. Sure, some social and other issues would have to be addressed but the specific reason for the party’s existence would be to abolish corporate personhood.

IMO, we just need people who are willing to vote and/or sign up in large numbers for such a party. They don’t need to have labels like progressive or libertarian. They do need to have a desire to restore …

On achieving our goal, abolishing CP and implementing CFR, then the party could develop around which ever issues float to the top.

Being founded in certain rules and with members acting as oversight for pol’s, the party would be impervious to ‘the money influence’. Unethical characters and those elected who get sideways with the party agenda could be rejected from the party through membership vote.

Seems a question of do we want clean and fair gov’t/politics or do we want to roll the dice and hope for a tax deduction, a free cellphone or some such equity from the system. With near 50 percent paying no taxes, 48.5M on food stamps (%200/mo), several millions on 99 week unemployment, etc, these folks may just want to vote themselves a raise, taking us further down the Socialist trail and to anarchy at some point. Europe comes to mind.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 4, 2011 9:50 PM
Comment #330348

moncler jackets will provide utmost comfort and warm for you like the Moncler Doudoune. moncler coats urgently to shop at moncler outlet online if you want to save time and money. Moncler 2011 with various different styles will protect you from the cold wind! cheap moncler jackets come with top grade quality will be a lifetime companion!welcome to moncler sale store.

Posted by: moncler outlet at October 10, 2011 10:31 PM
Post a comment