Third Party & Independents Archives

Federal Debt Moving On Up While Market Chases The Stars

Interesting url and comments
This business of getting to full blown globalism and an NWO is many faceted and staggering in scope, downright scary in some cases.

Must be 20 or 30 AFTA trade treaties on the books, perhaps 80 countries signed on to the WTO. Don't know of one that follows WTO regs but, supposedly the trend is away from corruption.

The too big to fails were bailed out, as usual. Gov't has bought some $17T of things that will have to be paid for at some point. The FED has pumped stimulus dollars into the economy leading to the highest stock market valuation ever. Worker wages are off by some 20% while commodity prices move up by leaps and bounds. The US has all this gas and oil that has no national value, must be sold into the global market.

We paid billions to move US corps overseas, costing millions of good paying jobs that will not be coming back. Of recent, US corps are marrying up with foreign entities to evade paying US tax on their profits. Yet, they still reap the value of residing in the US, enjoying corpocracy benefits such as patent protection and so on.

It just gets plain crazi at times. The corpocracy is now going to move chicken processing to China. Ship them frozen turkis 7k miles to be chopped up and packaged for resale in the US, after another 7k ride. With no label of origin etc. Side note that China recently purchased Smithfield, NC pork producer, guaranteeing a drop in wages there. Have you noticed that a bar of soap now is about the size of a small candy bar? Things that used to be sold by the plant are now being sold by the seed. Even as a robotic factory puts out some tens of millions of things per day.

It's kind of neat how the copocracy has figured out how to govern by crisis. Demreps are totally gridlocked until they can create a crisis that certainly requires them to do something. Debt crisis, budget crisis, housing crisis and now, wha-la, the border crisis. Time to do something about the 15-20M people walking around looking for jobs. Who knows, been kicking the can down the road, do-nothing congress etc, since the Regan amnesty.

Do we think it's a smart move to send more taxpayer dollars South of the border to buy off politicians and slow the 'beast' down? Those folks will get citizenship when the corpocracy is ready for them to get citizenship.

One has to ask where the power lies. Is it with your vote for your local reps or is it with A-D-Midland who wants laborers to farm their fields across the US, cheaply?

Rule by corpocracy is really quite simple. Only need to buy off a committee chair person here and there and it's done. Only a chair person can check off on legislation to be debated on the floor. The WaPo had a good article recently about getting around CFR regs. Seems Maryland passed some CF regs to regulate donor funds to candidates/incumbents. I think it was about a $4500 per donor per candidate limit. Turns out some of the donors have numerous corporations and thus are able to donate relatively significant dollars to their favorite candidate.

To better understand the workings of corpocracy one may want to read the life and times of Jack Abramoff. That should lead one to yearn for a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att. That's the only way any of this stuff can be corrected.

Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at August 7, 2014 3:59 PM
Comment #381741

Thanks for the links roy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 7, 2014 7:33 PM
Comment #381742
One has to ask where the power lies

Not really Roy, money is power and the power lies with the likes of the Koch Bros and the Chamber of Commerce, the corpocracy amongst others. You know the “job creators” that insist upon privatized profit and socialized losses. The same companies that denounce their citizenship to avoid taxes.

As long as we approve of corruption corruption will prevail. As long as we insist upon corporate states and business as government we get what we deserve.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 7, 2014 10:35 PM
Comment #381751
the power lies with the likes of the Koch Bros and the Chamber of Commerce, the corpocracy amongst others.

As is typical, the real concern is not moneyed influence, but CONSERVATIVE moneyed influence.

I see no mention of the Sea Change organization and the billionaires club in j2t2’s comments. I imagine he feels that they are good and necessary for his cause, so they are ok.

It’s this partisanship that’s the real problem, not the fact that some people spend money to try to reach the hearts and minds of others… The real desire is to shut up any opposing viewpoint.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2014 12:15 PM
Comment #381765

j2, from your posted link : “”The populist right’s instinctive response — the Tea Party — immediately became just another added layer of cronyism. A grassroots corruption. Really, a weed.”“

And that’s just it, j2. No one can attempt reform unless they have some political power and to get political power you have to play with the power brokers, ie Corpocracy. That’s why we don’t need just another 3rd party touting reform. The money influence would overtake a 3rd party in a NY minit.

We do need a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att. One founded in rules that can never be changed, a sort of death pill if you will. To change party rules the party would have to fold up and start up as something else, which would be just another 3rd party, and so on - - -

Rhinehold, partisanship is built on social issues like gay marriage, voter ID, gun laws, women’s rights and so on - - - The Corpocracy doesn’t give a whit for such issues. Corpocracy is about maintaining control of gov’t.

Done largely thru political parties and campaign donations. What does the Constitution say about political parties? What does it say about committee chairmen, minority/majority leaders and so on ??

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 8, 2014 4:55 PM
Comment #381773

Roy, the corpocracy uses those partisans to further its power.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 8, 2014 5:46 PM
Comment #381786

Fashion and popular items,in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style,varieties, low price and good quality,and the low sale price.Thank everyone Welcome to ==== ==
New Balance $65
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $45
Jordan (1-22)&2014 shoes $48
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===

===( )===
This is a shopping paradise
We need your support and trust

Posted by: kkaioo3 at August 9, 2014 10:09 AM
Comment #381792

Agree, Rhinehold to further it’s power. But, partisanship sits way in the back as it relates to the money influence.

The most recent bee in the bonnet, hint-hint > ‘looming crisis’, is that corporations are bailing out of the US, corporate wise, to evade US taxes. Rep’s seem to want tax reform across the board covering corporations and individuals. Dem’s want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Thus, the stalemate and the kicking of the can further down the road. Another way of saying the corpocracy is very pleased with the current situation. As entities with some human rights corporations have a bigger than large role to play in tax code politics, even world politics.

From the wiki url: “”From 1940 to 1990 the percent of total GDP made up by financial service professionals increased by 300%.[4] Along with that growth there was a growth in the profits this industry experienced as well. As disposable income banks and other financial institutions rose, they sought a way to use it to influence politics and policy. In response, Massachusetts passed a law limiting corporate donations strictly to issues related to their industry and nothing else.[5] The First National Bank of Boston challenged won under the first amendment. First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti allowed business to use financial speech in political causes of any nature, and not just issues related to one business’s specific industry. The Bank of Boston case was a huge win for businesses that sought to change the world through politics. As the economy was deregulated and the stock market grew healthily, corporate influence of the political landscape only augmented.””

Certainly endemic of the tail wagging the dog but, understandable when the tail has so much discretionary wealth to wag around. On a first grade level it’s akin to a skinny 6 year old 50 lb’er sitting in class next to a ballooning dude in his 40 ties, unshaven and full of tattoos, and so on - - - bad breath, etc.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 9, 2014 3:11 PM
Comment #381801
As is typical, the real concern is not moneyed influence, but CONSERVATIVE moneyed influence.

Rhinehold you act as if I am a dem, well I’m not. IMHO the greatest danger to the country today is conservatism as practiced. I have been out in the open about this for several years. I have consistently railed against conservatism yet I haven’t supported liberalism, libertarianism, progressivism or anything else. I have been against not for, for the most part, on ideologies.

I can understand, you being a libertarian and all, why you like to take a position against partisanship but isn’t it only to serve your own agenda? After all your responses are as partisan as most especially when you consider the difference between libertarians and conservatives is so small, probably religious differences for the most part.

But isn’t this just a diversion, as is most political discussion, while the real problem continues.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 10, 2014 12:10 AM
Comment #381813

The answer is two fold.

A) Corporations are not people, overturn Citizens United etc…
—- Corporations do not have rights.
—- Corporations do not have religion.
—- Corporations do not get the bill of rights.
B) Money is not Speech
—- Corporations do not get free speech (see A)
—- No privacy for political contributions (already working here in MA)

Some other details:
1) Fix the DeLay era gerrymandering.
2) Term limits with postservice K-street bans.
3) Add a VAT and reduce payroll tax.
4) Ban political ads for 1 week (e.g.) prior to an election.

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2014 3:31 PM
Comment #381825

Some good points, Dave. But, just who is going to deliver on such reform? Voters could vote til they are blue in the face but that wouldn’t move the Corpocracy to reform, IMO.

New incumbents can’t get into office without the money influence. Like with Cantor’s replacement. He will get stuck in a broom closet for the duration unless he is willing to accept ‘support’ from the Corpocracy.

Which is why I believe the only way to reform is thru a new 3rd party founded in some rules to prevent cooption by the money influence.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: roy ellis at August 12, 2014 8:48 PM
Comment #381848

I don’t think we need a new party, roy, there are already no limits on parties. And so far, unfortunately, the only new parties we get are founded by single-issues and/or extremists. I think the first and most effective step is to overturn the Citizens United decision. The left has begun a campaign for a constitutional ammendment that does this. Perhaps the right should join in on a common cause.

Posted by: Dave at August 13, 2014 8:46 AM
Comment #381861

funnie Dave!

Posted by: roy ellis at August 13, 2014 8:36 PM
Comment #381863

How so?

Posted by: Dave at August 13, 2014 9:51 PM
Comment #381876

Dave, the SC has stood on this idea that money and speech are synonymous. The SC would never turn on this issue, IMO.

Also, the Corpocracy will not allow congress to attempt to weaken the ‘money is free speech’ dictum.

Only way to take the money influence out of politics/gov’t, IMO, is thru Article Five Convention, a constitutional right which the corpocracy will never to be used.

Or, a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att. A party founded in rules so as to shunt the money influence and prevent party co-option by the same.

There are sufficient numbers of Independents to get such a party into the mainstream, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: roy ellis at August 15, 2014 12:03 PM
Comment #381877

My lunch was good, thanks roy. Seems like you write before eating. To the issue:

I said

overturn the Citizens United decision…(by) a constitutional ammendment that does this

You referenced “Article Five Convention”. Why not aim for following the constitution and push state legislatures as required by law? To be honest, reads as a bunch of crazies.

You said

party founded in rules so as to shunt the money influence and prevent party co-option by the same
Sounds great, yet how influential would such a party be without consensus? The established powers have done a marvelous job dividing this country into two camps and although I haven’t seen any other of your posts I’d suspect there’s little we’d agree on other than an anti-oligarchy. Not much foundation for a big political entity.

Posted by: Dave at August 15, 2014 1:08 PM
Comment #381878

Dave, this video on wealth inequality indicates that people are somewhat in the dark as to the stark reality of the level of inequality.

Wealth inequality has been in progress since the Founding. Anti-trust law helped to put the brakes on following the break-up of Rockefeller oil in the late 1800’s but, has been used sparingly over the last 100 years or so.

Likewise, corporate taxation could be used to clamp down on monopolization and conglomeration but, alas, corporate tax code is synonymous with swiss cheese. Before the ink is dry on corporate tax law reform the corpocracy starts

And, while inequality could be improved thru tax reform such as VAT or flat tax policy, it just won’t happen so long as the corpocracy maintains control of gov’t.

IMO, there are enuff Indies to support a new third party with a different political attitude. In lieu of that we can’t expect any real CFR reform. But, I fully agree, just another 3rd party is completely useless, actually hurtful to the cause of reform.

Otherwise, - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 15, 2014 3:46 PM
Comment #381879

‘Before the ink is dry on corporate tax law reform the corpocracy starts whittling away’.

Posted by: roy ellis at August 15, 2014 4:03 PM
Comment #381881


I think we’re all aware of the limited knowledge of the base population as well as the misinformation the oligarchy is promoting. As for inequality over time, it was at it’s peak just before the great depression and we’re well on our way back to that today. The period of greatest equality were during Americas Golden Age post WWII were everyone really did share in Americas prosperity.
Check out this image
We can debate the noise of the relative efficacy of different approaches but saying “yeah a VAT would work but it won’t happen” doesn’t get us anywhere. Do you agree that one way to stop this destructive trend is a constitutional amendment to “de-person” corporations?

Posted by: Dave at August 16, 2014 8:57 AM
Comment #381910

Yeah, Dave. I’ve flogged the blog for several years re abolishing corporate personhood, CFR, and so on - - -

I worked for 3 or 4 years to get folks interested in a 3rd party but found nary a soul. The above url’s will attest to that. Check em out, more in the archives.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at August 17, 2014 7:26 PM
Post a comment