The rich tried to campaign as Republican values to even the less intelligent of our society. The Newsweek polls show Barrack Obama ahead by thirteen points. You can't pay attention to that because that website is visited only by people who can read. One can't go by polls. How many of you actually participate in polls? Think about it. They are visited by a few people compared to the actual people who vote. I personally don't think someone who only remembers that "the white guy" is the one he is going to vote for should be allowed to register to vote. If you can't remember your own name you shouldn't be allowed to register. Barry Goldwater used to fill vans full of old people in rest homes (some of whom didn't know who they were without help) and drive them to the polls to vote for him. The republican party campaigns to the less intelligent of our society and teaches them campaign slogans to yell mindlessly (reminds me of a movie about zombies chanting) and tries to make these inbreds think they are getting the same breaks as the rich special interest groups give to themselves. I wondered how long it would take for them to realise they were getting screwed. It seems this was the year that some people who have become apathetic finally woke up. Thank You, thinking America. We will see how they try to disallow our votes this election. If it happens again, I give up. That will mean that our country has become a facist country (look it up, it means "corporatism") as defined by Lawrence Britt ( http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm ) years ago in his article, then about Nazi Germany. Read it and think about the present administration. Here is the deal. If one is voting on an issue concerning economic issues, shouldn't they be required to understand economics?
My other question is, "Why hire an economic professional if you aren't going to listen to him?" Here is a quote about the recent problem.
"...Greenspan, who stepped down in 2006, called the banking and housing chaos a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami" that led to a breakdown in how the free market system functions. And he warned that things would get worse before they get better, with rising unemployment and no stabilization in housing prices for "many months."
Gloomy economic reports backed him up. New jobless claims soared to just under 500,000 for last week, and Goldman Sachs, Chrysler and Xerox all said they were cutting thousands more workers. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials bounced erratically all day before finishing up 172 points _ after a two-day drop of nearly 750.
The financial crisis even prompted the Republican Greenspan, a staunch believer in free markets, to propose that government consider tougher regulations, including requiring financial firms that package mortgages into securities to keep a portion as a check on quality.
He said other regulatory changes should be considered, too, in such areas as fraud. "
If you or I did that sloppy of a job at work (e.g. Someone from packing and shipping decided to make a journal entry on the books instead of waiting for the accounting department to handle it.) they would be fired.
One of the most agonizingly aggravating things to me is that most of the people who think they know something about our economics in our country is based on information that they get from politicians. Politicians are not economics majors, obviously. If we were to elect an economics major to any government position in the U.S. then, we would be guaranteed to have a better idea of what we need to do. The problem is that most citizens here find economics boring and too hard to understand. The part where principals meet the road comes down to lack of education. If any of you wish to differ with anything I have to say then, PLEASE look up "Capitalism" on Wikipedia and read all the related articles. Especially check out the page on Supply Side Economics. That is what politicians TALK ABOUT when referring to Reaganomics or "Trickle Down Economics". They aren't the same thing. Let me give you an example. "The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes. Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high-incomes and capital who are deemed as most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth. Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income households, who are more likely to spend additional income."
Let me give you an example. Who spends money on spinning rims, pin-stripe paint jobs, fattening foods, and fake jewelry? Poor people. When they spend money it goes into "The Economy" as we wish. If illegal drugs, prostitution, and manufacture of technical devices such as bootleg software, immitation through fraud (*e.g. someone buying a concrete block in a cardboard box while trying to buy a stolen computer.) did not exist, our economy exists on crime and other negative influences. Unfortunately we find that the statement that, "War is good for business.", is only actually good if you are in the petroleum or munitions businesses.
Monopolies are supposed to be illegal here but they are rampant. In the U.S., as long as you can pay your corrupt politicians then, you can maintain a monopoly. Inovation has certain demands as long as we have copyrights and patents that can expire. As long as Telecommunications, Insurance, Petroleum, Tobacco, High Tech, Alcohol, and Unhealthy Food Manufacturers can buy lobbyists we are always going to have injustice that is rationalised as "Good For The Economy" then they will always exist.
As I said before, Karl Marx wasn't a socialist, he was an economics and sociology expert. Lenin used the term 'Marxist' as if he was talking about the same thing. Karl Marx said there were only two classes. Business owners and workers (everyone else). Anyone who has studied sociology comes to understand that his works were very insightful even though they were controversial. No one likes to think he is lower class. Let me give you an example. When slavery was legal in the United States, slaves were given a roof over their heads, clothing, and food. If you can barely afford that now, what is the difference between you and a slave? Did you sell yourself into indentureship? There are now too many controlling special interest groups lobbying our lawmakers to allow them to continue keeping us broke. They are allowed to "inovate" in the "new technology". Was I absent the day we took a vote and asked to have all our electronics and automobiles changed in a way that made the last technology worthless instead of having it be able to be upgraded? The airwaves are free. They belong to US! Why do we pay for free things that we already own? It's the law. Congress has allowed the worlds of Insurance, Telecomunications, Electronics, and Vehicles to need to be replaced about every three years, maximum. Speak your mind, write your congressmen, and do that thing we need more of, THINK about and STUDY about how everything you buy effects you and improves your life. If it doesn't do either, then why should I pay extra for more of what I already have under the guise of it being NEW AND IMPROVED? The answer is always the same thing, "But, it has this other thing you can't use and never wanted." Advertisers even do it with laundry soap. I have brand MRA and a year later for a dollar more I get MRA New and Improved!, but it has dies and perfumes that I am allergic to and make my skin itch, so then I get MRA Free for another 50 cents more than New and Improved. So, for a dollar and 50 cents more I get the same product I had originally before the chemists and advertisers messed with it. Don't these people think I noticed that?
Don't get me started on software. I need version 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, all of which will run my printer if I only download a new driver for each one of them which is more of a pain and leaves me open for internet predators. The web browsers just got stupid after a while. Every one thought they needed a new version of chat programs so they could chat and Instant Message people. These all left the owner insecure because anytime you allow people access to your hard drive you might as well be using My Network and have a shared computer with settings to share with EVERYONE. All for the pleasure of typing your message to someone. HELLO! That is why someone invented this new thing you might have heard of, it's called a TELEPHONE, so I don't have to type my messages.
All for Now,