RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Street writes: "Mrs. Clinton is still a wooden and uninspiring campaigner. She remains an abject, Wall Street-sponsored corporatist beneath carefully constructed fake-progressive rhetoric. She's still the same old 'new Democrat.'"

Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)
Hillary Rodham Clinton. (photo: Mary Altaffer/AP)


Hillary's Happy Holidays

By Paul Street, teleSUR

03 December 16

 

The main thing Santa Claus brought Hillary Clinton is a listless bunch of fellow contenders.

t’s been a happy holiday season for the American Empire’s next commander-in-chief Hillary Clinton. Her gifts have been remarkable. I am not referring to any special talent for inspiring voters and articulating a vision for democratic change. Mrs. Clinton is still a wooden and uninspiring campaigner. She remains an abject, Wall Street-sponsored corporatist beneath carefully constructed fake-progressive rhetoric. She’s still the same old “new Democrat” – a dismal, dollar-drenched servant to concentrated wealth and power – beneath deceptive, populist-mimicking oratory and branding.

She remains a hawkish and imperial militarist – the same politician who embraced George W. Bush’s monumentally criminal invasion of Iraq. The Clinton campaign makes no apologies for her eager advance (both as a U.S. Senator and as Barack Obama’s aggressively militarist Secretary of State) of policies that have destroyed Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Syria, creating the context for the rise of the Islamic State. Or for her leadership role in the dangerous provocation of Russia in Ukraine and elsewhere. It’s not for nothing that U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has described her as a foreign policy “neocon.”

It’s fitting that Mrs. Clinton’s main campaign logo features an arrow pointing to the right. The direction suggests the neoliberal and imperial essence of her career and agenda, well to the starboard side of U.S. public opinion.

No, the main thing Santa Claus brought Hillary Clinton this holiday season is an unthreatening bunch of fellow contenders in the quadrennial two-party-big media-big money presidential electoral extravaganza that passes for meaningful democratic politics in the United States. Who is going to block the Clintons’ return to the White House? Certainly not Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or any other among the xenophobic candidates of the ever more apocalyptically right wing, white-nationalist Republican Party.

The Republicans’ leading candidate, the bombastic real estate mogul and media buffoon Donald Trump, has the highest unfavorable rating among all presidential aspirants. His campaign seems consciously designed to push Blacks, Muslims, Latinos and women into the Democratic Party. Ted Cruz, Trump’s closest rival, is an open ideological apparatchik certain to alienate most voters outside the Tea Party FOX News (TPFN) cohort.

Hillary had to worry about a Republican opponent with the capacity to reach beyond the hard core Koch brother-fueled TPFN Republican base. But the GOP contenders with potential to do that – Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, or even John Kasich – have proven to be duds.

Beside their fatal liabilities in a general election, Trump and Cruz help hide Hillary’s own reckless and mass-murderous record. When compared with the leading Republican candidates’ inflammatory rhetoric, the language and manner of the empire’s next new clothes (Hillary) looks calm and careful. Who would you trust with the nuclear button? Who (to use Hillary’s campaign metaphor in 2008) do you want “getting that call at 3 in the morning”? Certainly NOT cartoon characters like The Donald, Ted Cruz or the ludicrous right-wing brain surgeon Ben Carson.

The Democratic candidate field is not much stronger. There are no young and telegenic rock-stars like Obama and pre-scandal John Edwards for the Clintons to contend with this time. The primary challenge the Clintons feared, with reason, was the liberal U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, but it turned out that “no meant no” when she declined fervent progressive entreaties to enlist.

Martin O’Malley has tried to build a brand as a younger and more liberal alternative, but’s it’s not taking (appropriately enough given his record of advancing racially disparate mass arrest and incarceration during his years as Mayor of Baltimore and Governor of Maryland). The listless Jim Webb and affable Lincoln Chaffee have already dropped out. Good old Uncle Joe Biden (who has the virtue of being less aggressively imperialist than Hillary) didn’t have the heart for another presidential run.

Yes, there’s the grim septuagenarian and nominal democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. It’s encouraging to see a candidate willing to identify himself with socialism (if that’s what he really wants to call his barely social-democratic New Deal liberalism) and “class analysis” attract large crowds and set new records for small campaign finance donations. The Sanders phenomenon speaks both to the distance of Cold War neo-McCarthyism and to the terrible, regressive consequences of U.S. neoliberal capitalism, creator of a New Gilded Age place where (as Sanders points out) the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

True, Bernie is leading in New Hampshire and close in Iowa, causing irritation in the Clinton camp. Still, even if he were to win one or both of those states, it’s very difficult to seriously imagine a path to a Sanders nomination. Hillary’s financial and organizational advantages are steep. So is her advantage with the corporate media, which gives her one free pass after another while insipidly (if predictably) under-covering Sanders’ big rallies and over-covering The Donald’s every idiotic comment and gesture. Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama.

Sanders seems to understand the harsh reality. He is willing to create some embarrassing moments for Hillary – on her revolting (and revealing) 2003 Iraq War vote and the outsized campaign contributions she has received from Wall Street executives. But the fact that he is not seriously trying to win the Democratic nomination is clear from his refusal to substantively and directly attack the longstanding neoliberal corporatism of his “good friend” Mrs. Clinton and from his willingness to assist her efforts to squelch public critique of her outrageous use of a private email server in her duties as Secretary State.

Meanwhile, Sanders’ underlying commitment to the U.S. imperial project and military Keynesian tends to render mute his call for progressive, social-democratic, and Scandinavia-inspired change. The costs, public-private investment pattern, and largely media-manufactured culture of America’s giant military empire and permanent war of/on terror cancel out social-democratic welfare-state Keynesianism in the “homeland.”

In the second Democratic presidential debate, Sanders admitted early on what “this [his] campaign is [really] about”: increasing voter excitement and turnout for the Democratic Party. Translation: Bernie is running to help the militant corporatist Hillary Clinton and the rotten, Wall Street-captive and imperial Democratic Party practice what the formerly left Christopher Hitchens caustically but all-too accurately called (in his 2000 book on the Clintons) “the essence of American politics….the manipulation of populism by elitism.” His role (unwitting or not) is to help Hillary’s eventual nomination look less like the advance finance-capitalized coronation that it is and to help create an, turnout-boosting illusory sense of meaningful popular debate within the Democratic Party. He’s a useful (not-so left) wing man for the Clinton machine, which is why the Clintons and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have been pleased with his campaign.

Meanwhile, the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have helped the corporate media replace anger over economic inequality (Sanders’ main issue) with fear of terrorism – a topic that favors Mrs. Clinton over Bernie – as U.S. voters’ top concern. More holiday cheer for Hillary!

The struggle for justice and a good society requires a powerful popular sociopolitical movement beneath and beyond the periodic, money-drenched, and highly time-staggered, major party candidate-centered elections that outrageously pass for democratic “politics” – the only “politics that matters” – in the U.S. Some of my fellow leftists think the Sanders phenomenon can assist that movement-building. I hope they are right.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+56 # Moxa 2016-01-03 18:32
Boy, does Paul Street not get Bernie Sanders! He calls him "the grim septuagenarian and nominal democratic socialist." And then goes on to say
"In the second Democratic presidential debate, Sanders admitted early on what “this [his] campaign is [really] about”: increasing voter excitement and turnout for the Democratic Party.
Translation: Bernie is running to help the militant corporatist Hillary Clinton and the rotten, Wall Street-captive and imperial Democratic Party..."

This couldn't be further from the truth. Sanders is trying to increase voter turnout by giving citizens a real alternative to the Wall Street-dominate d two-party system we've suffered with for way too long. And anyone who imagines Bernie has EVER entered a political race not to win, and not to help the people--particu larly the poor and middle class--
is just not paying attention.
 
 
-25 # dbrize 2016-01-03 19:26
Quoting Moxa:
Boy, does Paul Street not get Bernie Sanders! He calls him "the grim septuagenarian and nominal democratic socialist." And then goes on to say
"In the second Democratic presidential debate, Sanders admitted early on what “this [his] campaign is [really] about”: increasing voter excitement and turnout for the Democratic Party.
Translation: Bernie is running to help the militant corporatist Hillary Clinton and the rotten, Wall Street-captive and imperial Democratic Party..."

This couldn't be further from the truth. Sanders is trying to increase voter turnout by giving citizens a real alternative to the Wall Street-dominated two-party system we've suffered with for way too long. And anyone who imagines Bernie has EVER entered a political race not to win, and not to help the people--particularly the poor and middle class--
is just not paying attention.


Sounds good but riddle me this; what is your explanation for this?:

"But the fact that he is not seriously trying to win the Democratic nomination is clear from his refusal to substantively and directly attack the longstanding neoliberal corporatism of his “good friend” Mrs. Clinton and from his willingness to assist her efforts to squelch public critique of her outrageous use of a private email server in her duties as Secretary State".

???
 
 
+36 # lfeuille 2016-01-04 00:25
He doesn't attack her personally. He doesn't call her names. But he has made it very clear that he doesn't agree with her approach to government, either domestically or in foreign policy.
 
 
-3 # REDPILLED 2016-01-04 10:45
See Sanders' own site for his foreign policy: On the Issues: War and Peace
https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/

It's slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton's, which isn't saying much.

Contrast it to that of Jill Stein: http://www.jill2016.com/plan:
"Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights. End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire. Stop U.S. support and arms sales to human rights abusers, and lead on global nuclear disarmament."
 
 
+3 # newell 2016-01-04 16:19
sounds like the heavenly promise of christianity and islam-- a pipedream--but a good one. good luck with it, but if it doesn't work out i hope you vote for SANDERS.
 
 
+29 # Cassandra2012 2016-01-04 00:32
Perhaps he is not so small a person that he needs to attack her personally the way so many males of various persuasions seem to need to ...
Nor does he seem to need to ridicule, vilify or insult her such as bully Trump seems to need to do, or to be ridiculous and uninspiring as any of the the clown car Tealiban boys do .....
 
 
-13 # tapelt 2016-01-04 00:11
I think you are right, but I am still unhappy with his decision to not run as an Independent if he does not get the Democratic nomination.

However, there is something we can do about it:
http://citizensagainstplutocracy.org/
 
 
0 # Cassandra2012 2016-01-04 00:33
To become a neo-Nader to ensure a Repugnican win?
 
 
+53 # Moxa 2016-01-03 20:27
He HAS brought vivid attention to her Wall Street connections and how their large contributions to her campaign speak of a candidate who is not in a position or of a disposition to do much shaking up. His famous comment on the emails was not to protect her so much as to try to force the conversation back to what he really thinks is important: egregious economic inequity in this country. He is very consistent about this.

There is also a thin line between personal attacks, which he is against, and calling things for what they are.
He will not go for the easy mark, merely to damage his opponent. His goal is to present his own positions so clearly that their benefit to everyday Americans will be self-evident. Some may argue he should be more aggressive in his tactics. But never is his plan to preserve the status quo. That is why he has always labeled himself an independent. He seriously considered running as a third party candidate but that would have almost assured his loss and a Republican victory. You can see how much of an establishment candidate he is by the level of support he's (not)getting from the DNC!
 
 
+19 # dipierro4 2016-01-03 23:25
Totally agreed. If he goes all out against HRC and really hurts her, and she beats him (as she probably will), he may be the cause of someone like Cruz actually becoming President. That IS a big deal. And it would be an abdication of his responsibility as an important leader; unless he believes in his heart that the risk of such a consequence is worth taking.

He is old enough to remember -- when he had just come of age, in 1968, enough of our generation were disenchanted with Hubert Humphrey that they sat out in November, and allowed Nixon to win a very close election. I can't speak for him, but I suspect that he recalls it well. (If he doesn't, then surely he recalls how a few thousand Nader voters handed the 2000 election to Dubya -- and even you younger readers ought to remember that.)

Not to mention, surely he wants to have influence with HRC if she is elected. Can't blame him at all for that.

Let Bernie be Bernie. If you are serious about his becoming Pres., you need to trust his judgment anyway, not just agree with him on certain issues.
 
 
+15 # danireland46 2016-01-03 23:15
Hillary is as phony as they come. Only her husband is better in the deceptive game of seduction.
Together they've made Millions and may they survive retirement together.
We Musty keep them out of the White House again. Everyone should rent Primary Colors if we've forgotten who they are.
 
 
-11 # Caliban 2016-01-03 23:46
The two Clintons may have made significant amounts of money during their working careers, but they certainly didn't start out their lives in wealthy circumstances, as the leading GOP candidate did.

So why not give them credit for their successes instead of writing of them like thieves and traitors?
 
 
+38 # donaldmead 2016-01-03 23:23
We don't need a Clinton to beat the Republicans. Bernie can do it, handily. So, get out and work for your future. The future of your children. Do something America can be proud of and vote for Bernie in the primaries and the general election. Put a stop to creeping fascism. Bernie Sanders for president!
 
 
+16 # tapelt 2016-01-04 00:12
Hillary is a corporate tool. Only fools would trust her.
https://citizensagainstplutocracy.wordpress.com/hrcc/
 
 
+22 # jimallyn 2016-01-04 01:46
"Who is going to block the Clintons’ return to the White House?"

Bernie Sanders, that's who. Count on it.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-01-04 05:50
Quoting jimallyn:
"Who is going to block the Clintons’ return to the White House?"

Bernie Sanders, that's who. Count on it.

Don't count on it. Bernie Sanders is sure to run into adamant opposition in much of the country--not just on Wall Street--or his proud embrace of the "socialist" label.

And if h does win the nomination, his choice of running-mate will be urgently important. Given his age, there's a significant chance he would die in office.

Hillary Clinton's no spring chicken either, but she's younger than he is and so less likely to just drop dead (though given the hatred of her among zealots of left and right alike, he chances of being assassinated are troubling).
 
 
+13 # djnova50 2016-01-04 09:24
Don't hold Bernie's age against him. He is in this race to win. If he is healthy, he could easily live into his 90s. I will not vote for Hillary.
 
 
+3 # newell 2016-01-04 16:24
BUT BERNIE HAS ALREADY SAID HE WILL --AND SO WILL I BECAUSE SHE IS BETTER THAN ANY OF THE BONKER REPUBS. THAT SAID ............... vote bernie!!
 
 
+11 # ssr 2016-01-04 01:48
We all have to throw off the mental shackles that prevent us from conceiving our ideals. Now, work for it !

https://www.zazzle.com/drivehomethepoint/products
 
 
+26 # Vegan_Girl 2016-01-04 03:38
Read the article! Really read it, especially if you are a Sanders supporter.

In 2008, I was so sick after the W years, I was blind to see Obama for who he really was. I saw what I wanted to see: a liberal lion, a second FDR, our savior. His marketing campaign was perfect; many of us have seen what we wanted to see instead of reality.

It's OK to make mistakes, as long as we learn from them. Let us not make the same mistake.

Sanders is not running on a socialist agenda (it would be suicidal in the USA) he is not planning on nationalizing things or taxing the rich at a 90% rate as we should. No. He is proposing modest reforms, not a second too late, that would rein in the worst excesses of capitalism. Also, he is very quiet on foreign policy or voices the same stands as all establishment candidate. The article said it better than I could.

Change, real change does not happen within electoral politics. That is almost beside the point. Real change happens due to mass movements that frighten the oligarchs into doing the right thing. Nixon enacted a lot of truly progressive policies, not from the goodness of his heart, but because he was frightened of the thousands of people protesting in front of the White House. That is what we need to do, whether we elect Sanders or not, and much beyond that.
 
 
+8 # warrior woman 2016-01-04 06:44
Bernie is far better than Hillary
 
 
+18 # Vegan_Girl 2016-01-04 09:29
No one debates that. The point is that Sanders (although by far the best candidate) is not perfect and our job is not just to elect him but to create a mass movement, a wide coalition that brings about change.
 
 
+1 # newell 2016-01-04 16:30
and i think sanders would agree with you. i do. "When you build your house (a coalition), call me."
 
 
+4 # Dale 2016-01-04 07:23
In 2008 America voted for Change with Hope.
In 2012 expectations of Change soured, but dim Hope lingered.
In 2014 disaffected voters and non-voters recognized you can´t fight zombyism with nothing to offer.
Dems prostrate themselves before the Mecca of power,
Being paid to meekly lay down and suffer defeat.
The population demographics of AmeriKa greatly favor Dems.
But what do they do for 2016-- float a Damsel,
A Lay-Down Kitten,
To deal with the distress of being zombyfied.
Rising to Senator she went on board in 2003 with Bush´s War.
As Secretary of State she guided the War Machine,
Tried to outdo Henry Kissinger,
Bombed Libya, threatened Syria and sent Islamist terrorists there, sanctioned Iran,
Fired the flames of perpetual war.
For 2016, Warriors and Wall Street too are sure She is no “Populist”.
Hillary, Killary, Pillory Sock,
The Servant goes to the Dock,
The clock strikes High Noon,
The servant goes down,
Hillary, Killary, Pillory Sock.
Oh give us some “populism,”
No more counterfeit progressives.
 
 
+9 # Patti Holden 2016-01-04 11:12
Paul Street obviously doesn't understand Bernie Sanders and his grass roots campaign. Bernie is the best thing that could possibly happen in this country. There is a growing wave of support and understanding that he is right. Unfortunately the media choose to totally ignore him.
 
 
+9 # PABLO DIABLO 2016-01-04 11:14
This article basically says "give up". Well, it's too early to give up.
Bernie may be our last chance. VOTE Bernie and get your friends to vote. Hillary is a Neoconservative war monger and is married to Wall Street. Don't you remember her husband Bill giving the keys to the economy to Wall Street, undoing welfare, and bombing the shit out of Iraq without the American public knowing it. His Sec. of State Madeline Albright said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it? WAKE UP AMERICA.
 
 
+2 # Robbee 2016-01-04 11:26
the author is just as bratty as many here! clearly the author thinks that you have to do everything, fair or foul, to defeat your opponent! you can't just leave it at the issues, on which bernie has carefully drawn bright line distinctions, driving home thee point that bernie is distinctly more progressive than hill! you have to go negative! even better stupid! drawing out false distinctions to motivate your hammerheads! twisted folks who see nothing progressive about hill at all! hill is just some nail hill haters must hit!

emails? zomblicans' latest fake benghazzi? if bernie doesn't slavishly condemn hill for using a private server that revealed NO u.s. secrets whatsoever to anyone, street propounds bernie has quit the race! says - "Sanders seems to understand the harsh reality. He is willing to create some embarrassing moments for Hillary – on her revolting (and revealing) 2003 Iraq War vote and the outsized campaign contributions she has received from Wall Street executives. But the fact that he is not seriously trying to win the Democratic nomination is clear from his refusal to substantively and directly attack the longstanding neoliberal corporatism of his “good friend” Mrs. Clinton and from his willingness to assist her efforts to squelch public critique of her outrageous use of a private email server in her duties as Secretary State."

- boohoo! bernie quit? bull! - the only one who has quit on bernie is street, who is full of crap! - go bernie!
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2016-01-04 11:55
zomblican troll alert! beware - # tapelt 2016-01-04 00:11 "... I am still unhappy with his decision to not run as an Independent if he does not get the Democratic nomination. However, there is something we can do about it: (just ignore what bernie says!)"

tape, where did your zomblican buddies go? - # tapelt 2015-12-22 11:20 "Take the BernieOrBust pledge today!"

- citizen, at long last! thanks! outs RAP! - Republicans Against Progress! - says - # Inspired Citizen 2015-12-10 18:10 "It's going to be #BerrnieOrElse the GOP. That's RAP's promise!"

- # jsluka 2015-08-30 17:22 "Don't care what you say, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Simple as that. It would be better for a Rethuglican to get elected, and bring on the revolution."

here's exactly what bernie says about hill, when tape blocks his ears! - Sunday Nov 08, 2015 "On “ABC This Week,” Bernie was asked if he thought his agreements with Clinton outweighed his disagreements.

"Well, that’s -- well, the answer is yes and no,"

Sanders responded. "Yes, we do agree on a number of issues, and by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day."

"But having said that, we have very significant differences and the key difference is I see a nation in which we have a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality."

hammerheads, are you calling bernie a liar? k, then, start listening to bernie! - go bernie!
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-01-04 12:19
sorry! # REDPILLED 2016-01-04 10:45 "... Jill Stein ..."

- stein is a third-party candidate for national office, like nader in 2000 - the only thing a green candidate can accomplish in federal elections is to siphon progressive votes from the dem candidate!

didn't stein run in 2012? how did that work out for greens? greens are like a guy who goes to the frig, takes out the milk, opens the top, smells it's spoiled, puts it back, and every four years takes it out again, to see if it's fresh!

the irony is that stein is a competent candidate - like bernie, she should run for office as mayor, do a good job, run for office as senator or governor, as bernie proved a 3rd party candidate can win, before she goes around spoiling dem prez candidacies

the greens' mission is to ruin dem candidacies because they maintain that there is absolutely no difference between dems and zomblicans, which only shows inability to judge, lack of critical thought - when you believe in things that you don't understand, you're gonna suffer! - stevie wonder

greens haven't pulled a nader yet, but they won't quit trying! - go bernie!
 
 
+3 # newell 2016-01-04 16:39
greens have a right to be heard--especial ly since we don't have a parliamentary system. as bernie states environmental problems are the priority---and the greens have been the paul reveres. that said--VOTE BERNIE
 
 
+5 # JayaVII 2016-01-04 13:20
Street's an upstanding guy whom I've long admired, but is he wrong about Bernie. We have to remember how well-organized capitalism is, and how everyone plays his/her part in an almost genetically predestined way. The role of the media is to stupefy and conceal; of schools to kill intellect and curiosity; of labor to sit at heel; of judges to trample on justice ... and of the Left, to shoot itself in the foot.
 
 
+1 # Robbee 2016-01-04 14:15
today says bernie 4 january 2016
We must dismantle the corrupt system of campaign finance held in place by the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends. Contribute $3 to our campaign today.

“I like to give on a scale where I can see impact...” - David Koch

Earlier this year, a number of Republicans flew to California to make fundraising pitches to more than four hundred wealthy conservative donors attending a private conference hosted by the Koch brothers.

It’s worth taking a moment to ask the question, who are the Koch brothers, and what do they want?

The Koch brothers are the second-wealthie st family in America worth $82 billion. For the Koch brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough. Owning the second-largest private company in America is apparently not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process.

… the Koch brothers … have advocated for destroying the federal programs that are critical to the financial and personal health of middle class Americans.

Now, most Americans know that the Koch brothers are the primary source of funding for the Tea Party, and that’s fine. They know that they favor the outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and that’s their opinion. It’s wrong, but that’s fine as well.
 
 
+2 # Robbee 2016-01-04 14:16
(bernie cont'd)


But it is not widely known that David Koch once ran for Vice President of the United States of America on the Libertarian Party ticket because he believed Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. And he ran on a platform that included the following:

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws…”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”

In 1980, David Koch’s presidential ticket received one percent of the vote from the American people. And rightly so. His views were so extreme they were rejected completely out of hand by the American people.

But fast forward almost thirty-six years, and one of the most significant realities of modern politics is just how successful David Koch and the like-minded billionaires attending his retreat have been at moving the Republican Party to the extreme right. The ideas above that were dismissed as downright crazy in 1980 are now part of today’s mainstream Republican thinking.
 
 
-4 # WaaDoo 2016-01-04 14:20
Paul Street.
Seems like a decent person. Misguided but a good guy.

Since Cain bumped off Abel, there is contention of who rules over whom. Ain't gonna change until there's a Messianic Apocalypse. In the meantime, we gotta get along. Show respect, adjust when necessary and under NO circumstances give up the basic Universal Standards of conduct Ethics ( embodied in Code of Hammurabi, Magna Carta, 10 Commandments). There is no compromise on that.

Feed everyone in the US ? Yes, Free education and college, yes. Free health care universally? YES, of course.
BUT NO MORE BORROWING MONEY TO OPERATE. HENCE, MAKE FED. RESERVE PAY TAXES SINCE IT IS A PRIVATE BANK.
ELECT PEOPLE WHO WILL MANAGE A BUDGET AND STAY WITHIN IT.
IMPLEMENT FLAT TAX
AND STOP GRANTING MONEY TO NATIONS THAT
HATE US AND THREATEN US. That's just plain stupid.
 
 
+2 # newell 2016-01-04 16:46
WHAT WILL YOU CUT IN YOUR BUDGET? A FLAT TAX IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE TAX. AND SOMETIMES WE GIVE MONEY TO NATIONS THAT MAY HATE US --BUT HAVE CITIZENS STARVING--AND "THAT'S JUST PLAIN (EMPATHY)."
 
 
-1 # Patriot 2016-01-06 04:52
Why can't everyone pay the same percent of all her/his income, however derived, with no deductions or exemptions, as tax?
 
 
+1 # JayaVII 2016-01-07 00:35
Because it doesn't distribute the pain of taxation equally. A rich person paying 15 percent or so is still rich and lacks for nothing; for a poor person, paying that proportion of income in taxes may mean inability to pay the rent or buy food. High marginal taxes are a better answer. When the federal income tax began, it was only for the top 1 or 2 percent.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN