Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » Roy Rolling » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Roy Rolling's Rant du Jour - Archives
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Fri Oct 14th 2011, 10:42 AM
In 2001 the Heritage Foundation commented on the effect of the Bush tax cuts proposed in 2001. They predicted:

"...Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010.

The net tax revenue reduction, after accounting for the larger tax base that would result from higher employment and faster economic growth under the Bush plan, is $1.1 trillion from FY 2002 to FY 2011, 33.4 percent less than conventional static estimates.

The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax."

I especially like the part about "THE NATIONAL DEBT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE PAID OFF BY FY 2010"

My last comment is, the only thing they left out was promising me a pony...




Read entry | Discuss (6 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Mon Oct 03rd 2011, 02:35 PM
That guy Jesse on Wall Street said it, and this time a light went off in my head. It was a tipping point for me so I'll repeat it: "A FOR-PROFIT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK"
Read entry | Discuss (9 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Thu Sep 01st 2011, 12:36 PM
With apologies to the honorable chameleon, Republicans like Rick Perry and Mitt Romney---who support healthcare and then change colors when surrounded by political campaign operatives---are "Chameleon Republicans".

Like I said, no offense intended to the honorable chameleon lizard by grouping them in with more lowly reptiles like Republicans.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Wed Aug 31st 2011, 11:36 AM
Campaign-aholism: A disease where one is addicted to campaigning and never governing. Its symptoms are perpetually finding fault with the other side but being bereft of original ideas how to effectively govern. As long as politics is led by campaign-aholics it will never have an effective and productive role in society.

If you suffer from Campaign-aholism there is hope. Just say no when someone asks you who "your" candidate is. We back progressive ideas and programs first, and then support the candidates that best advance those virtues.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Tue Aug 02nd 2011, 08:44 AM
The biggest talking point lie/excuse from the debt ceiling fight by Teabaggers is: "we must force government to balance the budget with a Constitutional amendment because they have never done it on their own".

Do the Teabaggers ever study history? What about the last year of the Clinton presidency when the U.S. boasted a budget SURPLUS? It seems like under effective leadership the budget was handled responsibly, but the last ten years under a frat-boy president and cheer-leading Republican Congress they spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave---with apologies to drunken sailors who at least sober up.

The Teabaggers and others who repeat this lie are still drunk from the Bush decade.
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Mon Aug 01st 2011, 09:18 AM
If the "war" is simply to get Obama re-elected I will not support this fight. This battle is about progressive values versus ultra-conservative values that have hijacked the Republican party. It is about progressive versus regressive---turning back the clock on progress.

So if Democratic politicians negotiate by giving up everything of value along the way to the hollow goal of an Obama re-election they are giving up everything that defines a progressive society. They may end up with an Obama presidency presiding over a Herbert Hoover society.

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Tue Jul 19th 2011, 05:17 PM
So Wall Street stocks rallied 200 points on prospects that the "Gang of Six" proposals will pass. What that means is the bill will balance the budget on the backs of non-Wall Streeters, i.e., everybody but the top 5%. One aspect is troubling--"slowing down increases to Social Security payments." How can they get any slower? The Social Security increase has been 0% for two years straight despite rising food and energy costs. . .
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Tue Jul 12th 2011, 03:19 PM
This was from a CNN financial news story:

"Shares of Cisco surged nearly 3%, amid reports that the company may cut as many as 10,000 jobs -- or 14% of its workforce -- allowing the company to collect $1 billion in savings in fiscal 2012."

Eliminating jobs and increasing unemployment is "good business" in the U.S. today. And they want to decrease taxes on corporations because they are the "job creators?" Is it any wonder things are so screwed up?

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Thu Jun 23rd 2011, 02:23 PM
"Privatize"

As in "privatize Medicare", or "privatize Social Security". That word should be stricken from use. The real meaning of that term is "profitize", as in "they want to profitize Social Security". It is not about "private versus public"---that is the propaganda these swindlers want people to swallow. The battle lines are drawn between citizen-sponsored programs versus corporate, for-profit sponsored programs.

And how can something be less expensive when you provide the same service PLUS squeeze profit out of it for company owners? It's a fallacy, it can't happen.

So the next time someone says "PRIVATIZE" correct them by saying "you mean "PROFITIZE".

It makes more sense---I do not want them to profitize Social Security.

Read entry | Discuss (62 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Sat May 28th 2011, 10:40 AM
The strength of democratic principles is that they "work as advertised" throughout the political spectrum. Charity to the poor, for example, makes a better society for both Republicans and Democrats.

The weakness of democratic principles is that they do not guarantee to a particular party, like the Democrats, undying support for every political goal the Democratic Party may embrace.

I just lament how the group of DUers cannot organize as effectively as the opposition movement to the Vietnam War, for example. What is the answer? Do we need a more "heros" to lead the mildly-interested so they do not vote against their own interest?

It's about time that, those who care enough to be informed on social and political matters, not cower to physical threats or be marginalized by uninformed and mis-informed bullies who oppose them. Using your brain should not scare anyone.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in Latest Breaking News
Mon Apr 11th 2011, 09:06 AM
and change the framing of the argument. The use of the word "entitlement" is the Republican way of saying Medicare and Social Security are free gifts to recipients. They are not "entitlements"---they are the pay off from years of paying premiums. You don't call money received from your car insurance after a wreck an "entitlement"---it is an insurance benefit. A settlement, a payment,...never is it called an "entitlement".

Wording is SO important and anyone who uses "entitlement" to call benefits we receive after a lifetime of paying for them has already sipped the Kool Aid.

GET RID OF THAT WORD---ordinary people do not know what an "entitlement" is. Republicans use it as code talk to their base for "things that are free from government and should be cut."
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in Latest Breaking News
Mon Apr 11th 2011, 09:04 AM
and change the framing of the argument. The use of the word "entitlement" is the Republican way of saying Medicare and Social Security are free gifts to recipients. They are not "entitlements"---they are the payoff from years of paying premiums. You don't call money received from your car insurance after a wreck an "entitlement"---it is an insurance benefit. A settlement, a payment,...never is it called an "entitlement".

Wording is SO important and anyone who uses "entitlement" to call benefits we receive after a lifetime of paying for them has already sipped the Kool Aid.

GET RID OF THAT WORD---ordinary people do not know what an "entitlement" is. Republicans use it as code talk to their base for "things that are free from government and should be cut."
Read entry | Discuss (6 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Thu Mar 31st 2011, 08:59 AM
The irony: The party of "unregulated business competition" wants to pass laws to shield them from the competition of employees having a voice in their own company or government.
The thick-headed ideologues, that are the servants of the Republican Governor's Association, want everybody else to compete in a race to the bottom, but they want laws to protect themselves from what they preach is good for others.

Oh wait, maybe that's not so much irony as it is hypocrisy. The big-government meddling they say is the problem, is what they use to further their goals.
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Mon Mar 21st 2011, 02:28 PM
NPR funding eliminated.....................................................$5 million
124 Tomahawk Missles to Libya (excluding launching costs).................$71 million

Pandering to your hardcore base and war armament campaign contributors: PRICELESS




Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by Roy Rolling in General Discussion
Thu Mar 03rd 2011, 04:49 PM
Another strategy is to use the "competition" fad. Everyone wants the US to be competitive, how about this: LET THE US BE COMPETITIVE WITH CHINA'S DEFENSE BUDGET. If the US wants to be competitive with other countries of the world it cannot spend $1 trillion a year in "the war department" (yeah that's right, it is not all DEFENSE so that word needs to be retired). The US spends $1 trillion, China spends about $100 million---that's one thousand times LESS. So if the US wants to compete, let it cut its war budget.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.