GOP Calls For Impeachment Of President Hillary Clinton

Vowing to get an early start on efforts to remove Hillary Clinton from the White House, Republican leaders in congress have announced their intention to hold hearings on what they claim are the high crimes and misdemeanors that Hillary Clinton will commit once she assumes the presidency in January of 2017.

Hillary Clinton

Although she has not yet been sworn in to office (or elected, or announced her candidacy) Republicans are determined not waste any time in initiating her impeachment. House Speaker John Boehner told reporters that…

“We do not want to repeat the mistakes we made in the previous [i.e. current] administration where we waited too long to get the ball rolling. After all, President Obama was in office for nearly a month before we took meaningful action to remove him.”

Some members of the GOP attribute the failure to impeach Obama on the late start they got on manufacturing allegations of malfeasance and ginning up outrage over imaginary scandals. Consequently, they chased after flimsy accusations of foreign birth and socialist aspirations that never caught on with the public. That left them facing a reelection campaign dominated by impotent sound bites of whether or not small businesses “built that” and desperate rejections of real data including poll results and unemployment numbers. Republican strategist Karl Rove Rove addressed these shortcomings saying…

“We are proud of the fallacies we created and promoted. No one worked harder to invent phony issues than we did. Could we have done better? Should we have connected Obama to Hitler more often, or the spread of the Bubonic Plague? Sure, but it’s always easier to criticize with hindsight.”

This is not to say that there weren’t zealous attempts to plunder the Obama presidency. Republican politicians, with the help of Fox News and the Koch brothers, worked feverishly to construct controversies designed to hobble the administration. They labored over “Fast and Furious,” Solyndra, Bill Ayres, and ObamaCare, which they unsuccessfully took all the way to the Supreme Court. Each of these affairs, and several more, were alleged to be “Obama’s Watergate,” but none of them gained any traction with a populace that proved to be smarter than the Tea Party – admittedly, not a very high bar.

News Corpse Presents: The ALL NEW 2nd volume of
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

The latest episode for which conservative muckrakers are crying wolf (or Watergate, as the case may be) is the tragedy that took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. However, even with the help of near blanket broadcasting of Benghazi hysteria by Fox News, the utter lack of any compelling evidence of wrongdoing has turned the whole affair into a mushy smear campaign notable only for the tacky theatrics of the accusers. Even the specter of a cover-up fell flat when the proponents of that theory could not explain what exactly was being covered-up. “We forgot that little detail,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Tea Party-UT).

Rather than risk a similar fate in the event that Clinton runs for and wins the presidency in 2016, Republicans are casting their lots now. Since it doesn’t matter whether the object of their scorn has actually done anything unlawful, why wait until the former senator and Secretary of State is in office to try her for the crimes they are planning to pin on her no matter what reality ultimately serves up. It’s a strategy that they believe conserves a great deal of political energy that would otherwise be wasted on honest politicking and the responsible stewardship of government.

Senator Mitch McConnell, who declared shortly after Obama’s first election victory that his primary legislative goal was to “make him a one-term president,” is devoting the same measure of commitment to the effort to pre-impeach Clinton. In remarks to the GOP caucus last week he reminded his fellow Republicans that their priorities ought not to change just because the complexion and gender of the person in the White House does.

“We have spent five years obstructing everything this president has attempted to do, from passing bills, to appointing judges and cabinet officials. This is not the time to let our guard down and be distracted by the burdens of actually governing or helping the nation recover from adversity.”

Asked for a comment when Clinton was told of the Republican campaign to impeach her, she said incredulously “What the fuck?” And walked away laughing uncontrollably. Her office later followed up with this statement:

“We have always known that these clowns were certifiable, and now we are seeing some of the best evidence of that. The Secretary has not yet made a decision as to whether or not she will run for president, but if she does she expects to campaign vigorously and appeal to the hearts and minds of the American people.

She also expects to face dipshits in the Republican Party who, with their pals at Fox News, will manufacture insane theories and conspiracies, and she plans to wipe up the pavement with their lame asses.”


33 thoughts on “GOP Calls For Impeachment Of President Hillary Clinton

  1. Hey, look on the bright side – It will give the Rethuglican Morons two whole years to come up with some good lies. After all, it’s so clear that the Moron Patrol’s attacks against Obama are simply made up on the cuff. When something happens, they lie about what it actually means and say it’s a perfect time to impeach the president. And that’s simply the wrong way to do that, especially if you want it to stay in the minds of their viewer long enough for it to do some good.

    And besides, this way, they’ll have enough time to actually work their lies through so that the Evil Liberal Media can’t confront them with the truth and throw all their lies back into the sewer.

    The Rethuglicans are geniuses to come up with something like this! Genius, I tells ya!

    • “…actually work their lies through…”

      Yeah, like Clinton and Obama and Susan Rice actually telling the family members TO THEIR FACES that their loved ones were murdered because of a stupid Youtube video.

      It’s mystifying how Mark actually thinks that what he just wrote was funny.

      • They said nothing of the sort.

        The one’s who said that they said this are, surprise surprise, the right wing and their mouthpieces.

        Who are the liars now?

        • You are lying through your teeth. One of the mothers was on The O’Reilly Factor Thursday night and stated in no uncertain terms that Clinton and Obama and Rice said it was the video. They said this to her face. If you’re going to call her a liar, then you just destroyed your credibility.

          • The O’Reilly Factor…

            Credibility and O’Reilly should never be utter, or written in the same context.

  2. Mark: you’re the best. Brilliant satire. Think about posting a link to this on one of the numerous MMFA threads concerning Benghazi. It’ll drive the trolls (even) crazy(er).

    • OMG!!! When I first read this, my first inclination was to ask Mark “did they really say these things…….in public and on the record?” Not because they weren’t thinking this but to say it out loud. I bet the Clinton camp would really like to voice Marks’ rendition but have too much class.

  3. Mark, you have a gift. This was good.

  4. Security personnel resources were requested. The State Department decided that security personnel were not needed and denied the requests.

    The attack happened, resulting in the loss of four lives.

    The State Department emailed the White House, Pentagon, and the FBI, informing them that Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack on Facebook and Twitter.

    Before the day was out, Clinton issued a statement that the attack was provoked by an anti-muslim video on youtube, and that it was part of a protesting mob gone out of control. According to a State Department background briefing on Oct. 9th, there were no protests outside the U.S. consulate in Libya, and there had been nothing unusual that day.

    So the issue with this Benghazi ordeal is that the consulate in Libya requested security personnel. The State Department refused them. The consulate was attacked in an organized military assault resulting in four needless American deaths. To cover up this tragic incompetence of leaving the consulate inadequately staffed when the consulate had asked for manpower and been denied, the White House and State Department concocted a baseless accusation that a mob, protesting over an anti-muslim video, went out of control, when there is no known evidence of a mob or a protest in Libya, and when they had information in their hands saying it was likely perpetrated by a muslim extremist group.

    The facts are all available. This shouldn’t be about politics, left or right. And you’re fools to make it so. This is about government incompetence, regardless of which side of the aisle they’re on.

    • I think you’re missing the point. NOBODY CARES. Literally the only people who care in the slightest about what did or didn’t happen in Benghazi are the ones who would smear this administration on something else. This is just “scandal” number 226 of 594…it’s the middle child of TeaPublican conspiracy jobs, and lacks credibility not least of which because it is that.

      Even the people who MIGHT be persuaded to care won’t just because it’s a Faux News deal, and everyone knows Fox’s agenda. They’ve cried SCANDAL! so many times that they’ve effectively screwed themselves if they ever DO uncover something legitimate. It’s like if Weekly World News found evidence of REAL aliens or bigfoot. Who would believe them?

      At this point, the only people who take Faux News seriously are the ones who aren’t interested in running the country anyway. TeaPublicans have absolutely nothing constructive to offer at this point, and it’s showing. The TeaPublican’s sole purpose at this point is to cause as much disruption and obstruction as possible…the rest of us are sick of it, and are learning to just ignore anything they have to say. TPs are a joke at this point. The rest of us have more important issues to deal with, so we’re just learning to kind of tune out the lunatics screaming in the background.

      • Indeed, as you say, “The facts are all available.”

        Unfortunately you have not articulate any of them. Your description of events is an amalgamation of right-wing lies that have all been debunked.

        • Mark, you need to do a little research. The “amalgamation” is of actual facts, not from right wing anything. Calling them lies doesn’t make them so. You’re mistaken.

      • Richard, I’m NOT missing the point. The point IS that no one freakin’ cared, and no one cares now. When it’s some black thug who gets shot for attacking someone, it’s headline Democrat news, because it pushes the agenda for gun control. But when it’s four guys no one knows in a country no one cares about, it’s not worth making a fuss.

        I myself don’t give a damn whether Hillary runs for president or not. I don’t care about building her up or tearing her down. But I do care that our government refused these men the personnel they requested, and that the result was four dead Americans.

        If YOU don’t care about dead Americans at the hands of radical Islamic extremists, that’s your problem. I agree with your assessment. The lack of care is a widespread problem among Democrats concerning these murdered men. That’s precisely why it’s such an issue. Democrats rarely seem to care about anyone or anything unless it somehow forwards one or more socialist agendas.

        • No, it’s not a widespread “problem” among democrats. It’s called having priorities and a sense of perspective. So, four Americans are killed at the hands of Islamic extremists, and that’s somehow worse than thousands of times that number killed by AMERICAN extremists?

          The policies of the last several generations of Republican administrations have cost thousands of American lives here and abroad…where’s your outrage for them? Where’s your outrage for the soldiers who died in a war we never should have been in? Where’s your outrage for the Americans killed by the guns that Reagan traded during the Iran-Contra scandal? How about all the people left to die because they didn’t have healthcare, or all the police officers killed while prosecuting our ridiculous war on drugs? Women and children, kidnapped and burned alive by drug cartels…children made orphans by drive-by shootings. People robbing and killing and brutalizing each other just to pay their bills or make ends meet, because corporate cash farmers have turned us all into a self-eating peasant class? Where’s your outrage for DECADES of those deaths? F***ing plagues quietly unleashed, our environment destroyed, our groundwater poisoned and our children left to turn into deformed mutants so some politician can get a kickback from BP oil? War profiteers sending soldiers to die so they can sell more weapons, families ripped apart so politicians can keep our corporatized prisons full, children f***ing butchered by other children so the NRA’s backers can turn a profit?

          All sacrificed for profit or political reasons, all abandoned or sold out by our corrupt government. So, where’s your outrage for THEM? And you want us to lose our minds over FOUR PEOPLE killed in Libya? Four people who KNEW they were in the line of fire when they went? You have to be joking.

          When we can fix all that, when we can save OURSELVES…THEN we can worry about four dead people. We have 450 million to save right now, and that’s the relevant thing. At least, it is to most of us.

          • Richard…BRAVO! I couldn’t have said it better myself!

          • It is a widespread problem among Democrats, because you all have the same priorities and sense of perspective on this issue. One life should be enough to care about.

            I think that four dead Americans is every bit as bad as thousands killed under Republican and Democrat administrations. Do try to keep in mind that Benghazi is a consulate in Libya, and our involvement in Libya was Obama’s doing, not Bush’s. Do also keep in mind that we’re in the fifth year of Obama’s administration, and he hasn’t pulled us out of the middle east.

            It might also be worth your notice that the Civil War started when Democrats seceded and declared war. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, brought us into WWI. Roosevelt, a Democrat, provided military assistance to Europe against the wishes of the people and ultimately took us into WWII. The Cold War, the Korean War, and our initial presence in Vietnam all began under Truman, a Democrat. Vietnam was escalated by Johnson, a Democrat.

            Meanwhile, Lincoln ended the Civil War. Reagan ended the Cold War without a shot fired. Nixon ended our presence in Vietnam and established a peace treaty, which the Democrats betrayed. Eisenhower ended the Korean War within seven months of entering upon his office.

            The most significant war actually ended by Democrats was WWII, which was ended by the use of atomic bombs, killing 140,000 between the blast and the fall out in Hiroshima, and another 73,000 and as many casualties in Nagasaki. Both, while military targets due to existing depots, were populated by nearly ninety percent non-combatants.

            So get your facts straight on who the warmongers are. George W. sent us into the war on terror because of 5,000+ dead Americans at the hands of terrorists. But other than that, most of the major wars in our history started under Democratic administrations and ended through the efforts of Republicans.

            For the record, I don’t like the war we’re in any more than you do. I respect the lives lost, whether it’s four or four thousand.

            Now, the Iran-Contra “scandal” was conducted without Reagan’s knowledge so far as any investigations were able to prove in any way. That’s part of what made it a scandal. He was criticized for his lax managerial behavior in policy implementation by the Democrats. It was senior administration officials that were tried and convicted for aiding anti-communist rebels, to which the Democrats in power deliberately blocked all aid. The scandal itself was that the U.S. traded arms to Iran, who was at that time in hostilities with Iraq, our enemy. In exchange for the arms, Iran facilitated the release of American hostages. The money made from the arms deal went to aid the Contras in Nicaragua, whom the Democratic controlled Congress didn’t want to aid. The Contras were fighting for independence from a tyrannical communist regime. The scandal should have never happened. Congress should have allowed the aid.

            The actions of those senior staff officials is no different in principle than FDR sending military aid in WWII prior to our involvement. The people didn’t want the U.S. involved, and he chose to send aid below the public radar.

            The “War on Drugs” catch phrase was first made by Nixon in ’71, though he did not add new laws or policies. The Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention and Control Act of 1970 was a continuation of existing laws; viz. the Harrison Act in 1914, passed under Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. This act banned the production, importation, manufacture, compounding, dealing in, dispensing, selling, distributing, or giving away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations. In particular, the language of the bill relied heavily upon the notion that cocaine caused negros to rape white women.
            The Harrison Act was followed by the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act in 1934 under Roosevelt, Democrat.

            The War on Drugs has been opposed in recent times by a number of Republicans, Ron Paul most noteworthy of them.

            So you can blame the war on drugs on the Democrats. They’re the ones that made all the drugs illegal.

            Corporations … you clearly don’t understand anything about economics, else you wouldn’t be saying what you’re saying. We’re rapidly turning into a peasant class because the government won’t stop spending beyond its means. Deficit spending causes inflation. They are increasing the money supply, thereby devaluing our currency. When currency isn’t worth as much, it takes more of it to buy things. While both parties are equally guilty, the Democrats are the ones primarily engaged in overspending. Obama spent more in three years than Bush did in eight. Johnson and Carter are two other significant contributors in the inflation game. Johnson devalued our currency so badly that Nixon later had to take us off the gold standard to protect our gold stores from being depleted. Carter had inflation in the neighborhood of 11%.

            As for plagues quietyly unleashed, you’ll have to provide evidence that 1) it’s even true, and 2) that the Republicans are responsible for it as you seem to be implying.

            The environment here in South Carolina where we have a predominantly Republican government looks pretty good. Beautiful trees and landscape. Now if you’re referring to the ugly places like Detroit, various cities of New York, Cleveland, etc., please recognize that these slums are governed by Democrats.

            I’ve never in my life encountered poisoned ground water, nor mutated children caused by it. Maybe you should move.

            On your war profiteering, please refer to the earlier part of my post. Most wars are started by Democrats and exacerbated by Democrats. Republicans tend to end wars historically.

            The NRA is not a special interest group. They are a non-profit organization that fights for the Constitutional rights of citizens. The government has no authority to pass legislation on firearms. Period. It is a right that “shall not be infringed.” If you don’t like that, perhaps you should move to England, where they have gun crimes but no guns. It’s not right or fair for guns to be criminalized due to the acts of a few. It’s a plain fact that more people die every year from accidental falls than they do by firearm homicide.

            And I AM outraged by all the things that are wrong in this country. I’m outraged at the gangs that are not being taken to task. I’m outraged at a government that is trying its damnedest to strip me of my Constitutional rights. I’m outraged at careless pollution where it exists. I’m outraged at the war, and the fact that it still continues, and has even grown in scope five years into this president’s administration, though he promised to put it to an end. I’m outraged at the government’s lack of self control and negligent spending habits that have caused my groceries and all my utilities to double in the last five years. I’m outraged by all of it.

            But most of all, I’m outraged at an entire party of people who think that four lives have no meaning, and I’m even more outraged knowing that if the president and his staff were Republicans, you’d be singing the exact opposite tune. Grow up, and be part of the solution. Those guilty need to be dealt with, regardless of their party affiliation.

            And by the way, the 2010 census concluded 310 million people, including illegals, not 450 million.

            • Sorry about the census. I haven’t kept up, but last I heard it was 400-something. But I’ll admit I haven’t kept up. Honestly, I said “400 million” because that sounded right from last I heard, and it sounded good after “four.” I’m a writer…sue me. Even so, I think that 450 million might have been a little on the low side, considering the fact that the corporatist policies I’m talking about have affected almost every human being on Earth. Feel free to look up how many that is in billions. I’d hate to be wrong again.

              I’m not a Democratic apologist…I’m not a Democrat or a Progressive at all. So I have no reason to specifically attack the Right. I actually agree with some things from the Right, and even a few things from the Conservative base. So, understand that this doesn’t come from some ad hominem, Us vs. Them BS. (Not saying I’m not biased…I’m definitely biased against anyone who sides with money over people.) That’s why I’m not going to argue with you about what happened with what party before the 1970s.

              The Southern strategy and the 30 years leading up to it ideologically switched the Democratic and Republican parties…”conservative” (read: racist Southern) Dems became conservative Reps, and progressive Reps, disgusted with the associated with new Reps, migrated to the Democratic party. That’s established history, so any attempt to compare the two parties prior to about 1975 has absolutely no bearing on who they are TODAY. You can point fingers all day long about anything that happened before then, and it’s completely pointless…one side will always say the other side did everything bad. So, I’m not going to address anything you’ve said prior to that. Except for the A-Bomb, which I personally happen to believe made absolute strategic sense, and saved far more (Japanese and American) lives than it cost.

              So addressing ONLY what’s happened since the late 1970s (since the parties became what they are today), it’s pretty clear who got us into the mess we’re in now. Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics disaster set the stage for our recession today by effectively mortgaging the country to corporate and foreign interests. It was only after Reagan got done selling our country to the highest bidders that we found ourselves with the deficit we have now. Yes, Reagan inherited a certain amount of inflation, but that has every bit to do with another war we couldn’t afford than it does anything else. Not to mention OPEC, but that a whole ‘nother deal.

              As far as Iran-Contra goes, the conservatives are the first to point out that what an administration does is a mirror of its leadership; by Conservative standards, Reagan would be responsible for what his party and his administration did simply because they were HIS. If that had been Obama, Conservatives would have crucified him whether it was proven he knew about it or not.

              Re: The War on Drugs. The War on drugs has always been as much of a local phenomena as anything else, and in recent years (since about 1980) has been pushed harder by right-wing, McCarthian era Conservatives than anyone else. Or, at least it has when it comes to setting limits and penalties, and categorizing substances. It’s conservatives who fear-monger, supporting “tough on crime” local representatives and law enforcement administration. It’s conservatives who sold out justice system off to the highest bidders, “privatizing” our prisons by selling them to corporations who set contractual requirements on keeping them at capacity. Do you really believe that a contract saying that prisons MUST stay at 90 percent capacity at all times hasn’t filtered down to the local level? Our modern “justice” system is a money-for-misery machine, and that’s all it will ever be as long as conservatives continue to sell it off to the highest bidders.

              But I’m getting off-topic. Fact is, I don’t have time to list all of the corporate abuses that have made this nation what it is. While I can certainly appreciate your knowledge of history, you’re wrong. And I don’t have time to write a book linking every abuse to the next, every little step that corporatists have taken to undermine our Democratic Republic to turn this world (not just America) into a cash farm for the wealthiest 1%. The information is out there to back up everything I’ve said, and you can draw a logical line through all of it to see why we are where we are today. Including why slum areas tend to run democrat. Hint: see Southern Strategy and trickle-down economics. So, no…I’m not going to write a book for free on an internet forum drawing those lines for you. Do it yourself, and get someone to pay you for it.

              The NRA isn’t a special interest group? It doesn’t represent the profiteering interests of gun manufacturers? LMAO…do you believe everything you read on tax forms? Or see on TV?

              Yes, Obama initially had to spend a lot of money we didn’t have, because Bush starved us of corporate tax dollars and left us with the bill for a ten-year war that’s impossible to win. Come on.

              You’re worried about your constitutional rights? How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Those are the very rights that the corporatist Right seeks to strip from us, replacing our democratic republic with a ruling class of unelected, corporate ogliarchs. The “freedom” they talk about is the “freedom” to enslave populations and turn them into indentured servants. As long as we let these greed machines control us, we have no manifest destiny apart from that of livestock. The forefathers outlined a separation of church and state because the church was a nation without borders, exercising its own agenda all over the world without regard to the well-being of the native population. The modern corporation (descended as it is from European trading companies) is absolutely the modern Church in that regard. It is a nation without borders, a foreign entity that operates with no respect to the native population. I can promise you, if Exxon-Mobil had been around in when the Constitution was written, it would have read “Separation of church, corporation and state.” The whole purpose of that statement was to keep America controlled by Americans, free from outside influence that would rape the nation for its wealth. Which it certainly isn’t now.

              Let me tell you something, my friend. You can harp about guns protecting you from tyranny all you want, but guns won’t protect you from the REAL tyranny ruling our nation right now. You can’t shoot a master who only exists on paper, and you can’t blow holes through human greed. THAT is our enemy at this point, and it doesn’t bleed. We can bitch about left v. right all day, and in the end we have as much control over our nation as a student council has over a school. Or sheep have over a ranch. We ARE at war against forces that seek to rule us, but all we do is bicker about the bullshit they tell us to bicker about. Because God knows, as long as we’re fighting each other, we’re not fighting them.

              Like I said, though…you’re clearly intelligent enough to research, so do your own research. I don’t write books for free. The evidence is there, and the narrative is clear.

              In summary, I think it’s really nice that you think four lives are important enough to change course over. Personally, I think you’re only using those four deaths to justify your pre-existing bias against anything Democratic, but I’ll assume the best and pretend that you’re just morally uncompromising. Good for you. But even if that were the case, we are at war against our oppressors, and there are casualties in war. War isn’t nice, and it isn’t pretty, and nobody comes out of it without some blood on their hands. If you really, honestly believe that those four casualties are equal to the deaths and enslavement of thousands, then you’re a good priest, but a shitty soldier.

              I suggest that you get it through your head that you’re on the losing side. The internet and mass-communication make everything they touch a democracy, and the days of the corporatist and brainwashed corporate defenders like yourself are coming to an end. When the old guard dies off, the new will take over and we will have justice and equality for all. You’re fighting a battle you’re destined to lose…you’re fighting to maintain an obsolete system of corporate oppression that relies on ignorance and individual greed to maintain cohesion. The power of the Church died when democracy spread, and the power of the wealthy and powerful will die when ignorance can no longer spread through the billions of people on Earth.

              Again, please get back to me on how many billions of people are on Earth. I haven’t kept up.

            • “I’m not a Democratic apologist […] I have no reason to specifically attack the Right.”

              And yet you said,

              “The policies of the last several generations of Republican administrations have cost thousands of American lives […]”

              You then went on to describe the alleged policies, actions, and consequences of those Republican administrations.

              The political parties did not switch. Some people switched political parties. Republicans have always been conservative, and Democrats have always been communists. What’s established history is that as far back as the 1800s and William Jennings Bryan, the Democrats have pushed for progressive income tax, social welfare, the downfall of private industry, and authoritarian autocracy. The Republicans defended private industry, the Constitution, and individual freedom. Although the lines are getting a little blurred in our modern day, the same still holds true. Democrats raise taxes, increase spending, attack the Constitution, and tests the limits of power. Republicans cut taxes, balance budgets, defend the Constitution, and do their job. While there are bad apples in every barrel, this has been the general gist of the two parties’ legacies.

              So my previous examples stand. The Democrats are the warmongers, not the Republicans. The Democrats are responsible for the War on Drugs and the consequences it has had, as they are also responsible for the 18th amendment and Volstead Act that ushered in Prohibition and the organized crime it facilitated.

              And the north was just as racist, I hate to tell you. My mother clearly remembers the black and white water fountains, rest rooms, etc., and that was in Massachusettes.

              I do agree with you that the atomic bomb was a good thing. It probably did save more lives than it took. The problem is that it scared the crap out of the whole world and gave birth to the Cold War. So the Democrats are responsible for that.

              Trickle-down Economics … you clearly have no idea what it is or how it functions, else you choose not to acknowledge it.

              First and foremost, there’s really no such thing as trickle-down economics, also more rightly known as supply-side economics. All economics is supply-side, because without supply and demand, there is no trade. When two people barter goods or services, there is economy. One side offers goods to get what he wants. The other offers services to get what he wants. If either has neither to offer, the economy fails. If someone chooses not to produce either goods or services, economy fails. For there to be economy, there must be supply, demand, and exchange.

              Secondly, the whole idea is in itself a misnomer. It takes money to create jobs. Whether you leave the money in the hands of the private individuals who earned it so they can expand their businesses, or you tax it away from them and let the government create business, it amounts to the same thing. In other words, it’s no less trickle-down when the government spends the rich man’s money rather than the rich man himself. The only difference is who gets to spend the money, how, and on what.

              When private enterprise spends their own money on new or expanding innovation, there is lasting productivity. The business does more, and consequently pays more taxes in terms of dollars due to increased revenue. More people are put to work since it is the goal of a business to expand and be profitable, and that requires additional labor. More people working means more tax dollars paid in. It’s good for the business, good for the workers, and good for the government.

              When the government spends the money, they spend it on projects that earn no profit, are not self-sustaining, and that have no lasting productivity. Government projects tend to create economic bubbles in the various communities. When the jobs begin, money earned is money spent, and this enriches the local community where the jobs have been created. This is the alleged multiplier effect. But when the project ends, jobs lost is money not spent, and the entire community, used to a certain level of patronage and revenue, finds itself fallen on hard times. Unemployment benefits are paid out, tax revenues fall, state tax revenues fall, a robust economy falls on its face, etc. This is the cause of the double dip recessions the country has been suffering.

              Reagan’s economic plan created a robust economy throughout the 80s, and well into the 90s. There is no evidence that his economic strategy had anything to do with the recent difficulties.

              In point of fact, the recession we fell into in ’09 was actually due to the Housing and Urban Development Act signed in by President Johnson in 1965, which was itself a revision of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The legislation went through a long and painful history, most notably in 1977 under Carter with the Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG), and then between ’93 and ’96 under Clinton, leading to over 66 million home owners, the largest in the country’s history, topped at 71 million by the end of 2000. Clinton’s laws forced banks to make mortgage loans to people with bad credit scores and insufficient incomes.

              The flood of home owners led to a housing and construction boom. The demand was high, since anyone qualified to buy a house, even with credit scores in the 400s (I know someone personally that was approved for $180K with a 470 credit score and $400 a month income). Demand generates supply. If someone wants a product, someone will make the product to earn money.

              The banks, well aware that the mortgages they were being forced to approve were high risk, sold them. The buyers bundled the toxic mortgages, in many cases completely unaware that they were high risk due to the AAA rating they had been given, and sold them to investors.

              Then the rash of fixed rate mortgages kicked into their variable rate phase, and people who never should have been approved in the first place found themselves unable to make their payments. Foreclosures sky-rocketed. The bundled mortgages went sour. Brokerages tried to get rid of them. This led to a panic, which in turn led to a crash, and ultimately to a bailout of the banking system.

              Our economy is still trying to recover, because too many people were in the housing market. At present, there is a glut of homes for sale, but there aren’t a significant number of buyers. When the demand is down, prices have to drop. But Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (Ginnie Mae is involved too, though most are unaware that Ginnie even exists) refuse to lower the prices on the mortgages they hold. So we have a situation where demand is low, supply is high, but the prices won’t come down. The consequence is that fewer new homes are being built, resulting in a stagnant construction industry, and not many of the houses being held by Freddie are selling because they are priced too high.

              THAT is what caused our economic disaster, not Ronald Reagan or his trickle-down economic policies.

              And it’s worth noting that Ronald Reagan’s spending was part of an arms race, with the pre-stated goal of breaking the Soviet Union and putting an end to the Cold War, which Reagan did, in fact, accomplish.

              I agree that what an administration does reflects its leadership. And I’m proud of Ronald Reagan for fighting the communists on all fronts, even if the Democrats hated him for it. If Obama fought against communism instead of trying to implement it in America, I’d be proud of him too. Unfortunately, Obama is clearly following the Cloward-Piven strategy point for point and trying to break America.

              Conservatives are harder on drugs. I’ll give you that. As a matter of morality, most are of the opinion that drugs are bad. Personally, I disagree with drugs being illegal. I think that personal freedom takes precedent. I’m capable of thinking for myself and taking responsibility for my actions, whether it’s a choice of whether or not I should do heroin, or whether I decide to buy a 32 oz. fountain drink. I don’t need the government to micro-manage my life.

              However, do keep in mind that presently, drugs are, in fact, illegal. The conservatives didn’t make them that way, but they do support the rule of law. Ergo, the Republicans/conservatives shouldn’t be blamed because they diligently enforce the law. Rather, the Democrats should be blamed because they’re the ones that made it illegal in the first place.

              I disagree with your opinion that conservatives are the fear-mongers.

              And I agree with privatizing the prison system. It shouldn’t be the burden of the citizens to pay for the prison population with their taxes. As long as justice is not being perverted, I couldn’t care less. Let the prisons earn a profit and be self sustaining.

              Concerning corporate abuses, I’m not wrong. The “wealthiest 1%” are not the corporations. It’s the central banking system, like the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Europe, the IMF, etc. Corporations are just businesses, and there isn’t one of them that didn’t start as a small business on borrowed or saved money, that didn’t struggle, and that overcame the difficulties of start up to become successful companies.

              If individuals do things that they shouldn’t do, we have laws to prosecute or fine them. But companies don’t hurt the world, they provide a lifetime of services that you couldn’t otherwise provide for yourself. Even now, you are reading this on a computer or device made by a corporation. You have responded using the same. You are sitting in a chair made by a corporation, and wearing socks, underwear, pants, and a shirt all made by corporations. You live in a house or apartment made by a corporation, using materials made by other corporations. The food you eat is processed and sold to you by corporations. There is virtually nothing you have, nothing you do, and no where you go that wasn’t made possible by corporations. To blame them for the woes of the world when they are actually responsible for every comfort you enjoy, such as air conditioning, electricity, light, transportation, etc., is just ridiculous.

              The hatred of corporations is nothing short of good old fashioned communism. The communist goal is to deprive the wealthy of their wealth in order to make everyone equally poor. In the words of Karl Marx, “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.”

              So don’t worry about writing a book for me. Marx already wrote your book. You’d like him. He hated private enterprise too, and thought that the wealthy should all be made poor.

              No, the NRA is not a special interest group. They are exactly the same as an entity as the ACLU, the NAACP, and all the other civil rights organizations. They just focus on the 2nd amendment, whereas other groups tend to neglect it. Especially the Democrats, who seek to disarm the public. You can lyao all you want. This is the truth. They need funds to operate the same as any other non-profit organization, but they don’t represent the gun manufacturers or their profits. They represent the people on a civil right that is constantly under attack.

              The war didn’t start until 2002. Bush was gone by 2008. That’s a six-year war. The rest is on Obama, who didn’t do what he said he would do and bring the troops home. And Obama didn’t spend the money on war. He spent it on new programs, stimulus packages, and hand outs to companies like Solyndra.

              Yes, I’m concerned about my rights. To date, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments have already been abridged. The “right” has sought to protect those rights for the most part. I do call foul on Bush for the Patriot Act. But the rest is all Democrat.

              And I have to say that you have a warped view of how things function. No one is enslaving anyone. I chose to make a living on my own. I’m succeeding. People choose every day to start their own businesses, and many manage to do so. Life we clearly have. Liberty is being squeezed by the left. And the pursuit of happiness is rapidly becoming nothing more than chasing the purple dragon, because happiness can’t be achieved except that some Democrat communist screams “equality” and tries to take it all away under the guise of “greedy corporatist right, trying to enslave the people. They have enough to spare. Take the money from them. They don’t deserve it.”

              You said, “As long as we let these greed machines control us, we have no manifest destiny apart from that of livestock.”

              I read something similar not long ago.

              “All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it. In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.” — Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto.

              You can take that communist crap and stick it where the sun don’t shine. This is America bub.

              I would also like to say that the only reason any corporation has money is because people buy their products and services. They aren’t a foreign entity that shows up one day with a bag full of cash to buy the White House.

              Your closing paragraph … it mimics the Communist Manifesto so closely, I can’t possibly quote all the passages of similarity. You have no idea what it is you support, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. Not about corporations, economics, history, or anything else. You have very strong opinionated views, and they are 100% communist. If you call yourself an American, you make me sick.

            • OK — That’s enough you two.

              This is a “comments” section, not a place for people to write extended essays that are grossly off-topic.

              You’ve both had your say, now move on to something else. Thank you, the Editor.

          • Sad as it is, you are so absolutely correct, Richard.
            Sing it, man.

  5. No, what’s sickening is the fact that you think that anything remotely socialist or communist is the polar opposite of the American system. “America” is not now and never has been the polar opposite of Communism. We FOUGHT a Communist empire because it was just that…an empire that threatened our sovereignty. Not explicitly because it WAS Communist. That was just the ideological cover-up, an easily digestible “Us vs. Them” pablum fed to a public too stupid to understand the concept of national loyalty by any other means.

    The simple fact is that America is a Democratic Republic. It has always contained elements of both fascism and communism, and those two extremes work to counterbalance each other so that we can maintain the flexibility that it takes to prosper. One side is about growth, the other side is about maintaining the status quo…the two ideologies are the yin and yang of our social-political structure. Absolutely dismissing one or the other as unnecessary under any circumstances is as stupid as saying that you don’t need your bones or your muscles…you only need one or the other.

    So, you can stick your McCarthy-era bullshit where YOUR sun doesn’t shine, sir. Fine…call it communism or Marxism if you like. I suppose that’s as appropriate as my calling those you support economic Nazis. You’re right, and I’m right. And that’s fine. But we have a bicameral system for a reason, and that is because a nation may NEED one perspective or the other at any given time. My point is that at this time, the one thing we DON’T need is to maintain the status quo. The corporatist mentality that proliferated during the industrial revolution is dead, and its defenders are fighting for a corpse.

    One thing you’re definitely wrong about is that I hate corporations. You’re dead wrong about that. I love corporations, and I’d be the first to say to anyone that almost everything that we like about our culture came from some corporate enterprise or another. What I don’t love is the DEIFICATION of corporations…placing the corporate interest above all else. Corporations are predators by design; and that’s fine, the world needs predators. But putting corporations at the top of the socio-economic ladder is like putting the wolves in charge of the hen-house. The only ones who profit are the wolves, at least until they run out of hens to eat. And then they move onto a different henhouse.

    Which brings me to my next point. The supply-side economic model is intrinsically flawed because it fails to account for one thing: WE DON’T LIVE IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. Yes, supply-side or trickle-down economics would work wonderfully if there were somehow magic doors on American borders that allowed money to flow in, but never out. Under those circumstances, the rich would be forced to redistribute money back to the people they got it from, and we’d all be better off for it. But we don’t live in a closed system, and the simple, empirical fact is that they’re NOT spending the money we give them here. They’re stockpiling it in bank accounts overseas, they’re buying stock in corporations that open factories in China or Mexico, and they’re buying up oil fields in the Middle East.

    The whole supply-side equation is flawed because the US economy leaks like a sieve. No matter how much money we give the 1% and corporations, there’s no guarantee they’re going to spend it here. And history shows that they’re not. They’re sending it to India, China, Mexico…anywhere they can send it to make and horde more money. Then, having established factories and operations and an affluent buying class in poor nations, they sell the products back to them and the process starts over. But they’ll never spend everything they have. They’re going to keep hording a certain amount of it so they can STAY the richest 1%.

    Very simply, the only reason we saw America “prosper” under Reagan is that he sold us out for short-term gains to make the rich richer. All of the policies he enacted funneled money into America by a) increasing the deficit, and b) giving it only to the wealthy. If you look at the GNP figures during that time, you see that, yes, GNP goes up very sharply starting in 1980 and maintains a steady rise to its peak in 2001. After which it crashes. But lay that over a graph showing the average wage during that period (almost a flat-line), and compare THAT to the income disparity during that period. Income disparity rises LINEARLY with the GNP. I’ll break that down for you: from 1980 to today, every dollar of increase in GNP has gone to the wealthiest people in the nation. The rich have only gotten richer, while everyone else either got poorer or stayed exactly the same.

    And here’s the really epic part. Prior to 2001, income disparity did rise linearly with GNP. After 2001, GNP dropped like a rock, but for the first time in 80 years, income disparity went UP. So, the rich finally harvested us for everything they could, and now we’ve reached a base level where they’re picking the carcass clean of what remains of the middle class. If you’ll give me an email address, I’ll send you the graph I compiled to illustrate that, and you can see for yourself.

    In short: Supply-Side economics my ass. It doesn’t work. It just doesn’t. Make all the arguments you want, throw out all the twisted logic you like…IT’S NOT WORKING. Not for us, anyway. Seems to have done wonders for China, though. There’s “lasting productivity?” Yeah, sure there is. But lasting productivity WHERE?

    I’d also like to point out that apparently you already know this, because you came very close to directly contradicting yourself:

    “All economics is supply-side, because without supply and demand, there is no trade. When two people barter goods or services, there is economy. One side offers goods to get what he wants.”
    “Demand generates supply. If someone wants a product, someone will make the product to earn money.”

    So, even in your own words, you acknowledge that customers having the money (bartering power ect) to purchase something is what determines whether or not it gets supplied. But the customer has to have money before the supply-side will supply it. You said it yourself…demand drives supply. Not the other way around. The people are more important than the corporation, because the corporation is expendible. Customers are not. Sounds like something a damned Commie would say, if you ask me.

    The wealthiest 1% aren’t corporations? OK…who owns a publicly traded corporation? The stockholders, right? Each stockholder owns a piece of that corporation. So, who owns over 50% of the stock of all corporations in the United States? Well, that would be the wealthiest 1%. Who, incedentally, also own over 40% of all the wealth in the nation. So, it’s completely fair to say that in practical terms, there’s no separating the 1% from corporations. In effect, they’re one in the same entity. Pardon me if I address them as such.

    As far as “Democrats being warmongers ect.” OK. Like I said, I’m not going to argue with you about what the parties did or didn’t do prior to the Southern Strategy. I’m talking about what they are NOW. And the one damned thing that Democrats and Progressives CERTAINLY aren’t now are warhawks. After 9/11, how many Dems did you see standingg in the streets screaming that we nuke the whole Middle East? I saw plenty. How many progressives have you seen in the last 10 years who advocated sending more troops to the War. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of any. I can think of plenty of redneck Republicans, though. I could be mistaken, but were those democrats badgering for more and more military spending? No, I don’t think they were. Again, please focus on the people you’re talking about NOW, not 50 years ago. Maybe you haven’t read the papaers, but a lot’s happened since then.

    ” The conservatives didn’t make them that way, but they do support the rule of law. Ergo, the Republicans/conservatives shouldn’t be blamed because they diligently enforce the law.” The “rule of law” is a poor-man’s substitute for personal morality. Try to think of anyone our culture would call a “superhero” who’s never broken the law. We idolize those who ignore the law to do what they know is right, because the law is by definition amoral at best. Anyone who blindly follows the law has no morality of his own. So, again, you said it yourself. Conservative blindly enforce laws that you and I both agree are wrong, but they do it because they’re too morally weak or lazy to do otherwise. No system is perfect, but worshippers of law try to convince themselves otherwise because the law is the only substitute they have for actual morality. I tend to think it’s because you don’t have to think much if somebody just tells you what’s right or wrong. And conservatives are generally the laziest “thinkers” on Earth.

    Keep on defending the NRA and who it represents, man. Let me know how that works out for you.

    In YOUR closing paragraph, you say that I have no idea what I’m talking about because I follow some kind of Marxist doctrine. Which is obviously another McCarthian Us v. Them ploy to marginalize someone else’s perspective simply because you’ve decided they’re “one of Them.” That’s fine…it’s typical of lazy thinkers to do that, because it eliminates the need to consider anything objectively. Must be nice to buy your ideas by the bundle…do you get them on sale that way?

    So, call me a communist if you want to. But bear in mind that this nation has always been what it is because we strike a balance between the left and right, between communism and fascism as need be. We adapt to the times, and sometimes the population swings one way, sometimes it swings the other. I have no more desire to see corporations wiped out than I do to see
    conservatives erased from the face of the Earth. There’s a time and a place for everything. But in many of the most successful cultures in history, the merchant class was essentially the bottom rung of society. Below farmers, artists and royalty, just above beggars and prostitutes. And not always then. Reagan and others elevated the merchant class to the top rung of society, and this is the mess we get for it. For the deification of greed. THAT disturbed the balance that made is successful…tipped the scales to the fascist.

    Looks to me as though it’s time for them to tip the other way. At least for a little while…till we can get this train wreck straightened out. We can meet somewhere in the middle later.

    • Richard, out of respect for the admin, I’m not going to answer your post with the sort of detail and rebuttal it deserves. Suffice it to say, in lieu of a proper answer, I wanted to express to you that I disagree with virtually everything you wrote.

      It’s been fun debating. I hope you’ll take some time, reread some of my posts, and perhaps consider the arguments I’ve made. No one is going to be right all of the time, but I’m more right on some of the things we discussed than you’re giving me credit for.

      I wish you all the best.

      • Ten-Four. Out of respect for the Admin, it’s squashed. Maybe he has a point, though. I obviously talk too much, and you seem to enjoy grandstanding for an audience…maybe we should start a blog. Call it “Degenerate Marxist and Corporatist Nazi Argue About Things.” I’d read that.

  6. @ Mark: Why do you have a problem with people having a discussion? Isn’t that kind of the point of sites like this and articles like yours?

  7. I meant that last question respectfully, BTW.

    • Likewise, with respect, these extremely long dissertations are not discussion. I think they actually distract from discussions because they veer so far off the topic. You and Frazier are not going to change each others minds and the debate is degenerating into insults. I don’t think it does anything for this web site (or for discourse) to permit “comments” that are ten times longer than the article and don’t even reference the subject. I try to lay off when stuff like this starts, but when it goes on and on, eventually I feel I have to step in and direct people back to the topic at hand.

      I hope you will always feel free to comment here, but if you have this much to say about things unrelated to my articles, you should think about starting your own web site.

      • What Are your life personal experiences that forms your opinions?

  8. Life in the 1920s 30s 40s I was alive and trying to stay alive
    Race religion your life style are you a die hard in Dem or Rep
    For all your problems sex women speak when spoken too
    How to worship your god problems Obama and his Muslims will take care of you..
    little more time.

  9. It will be the straw that broke the camels back!If she is elected!
    It will be proof that without a doubt America has lost its mind!
    First the libs elect a president based on skin color and the next one because it has a vagina!Let her rally call be, WHAT DOES IT MATTER!

  10. Yup, Clyde. I’m voting for vagina. It has nothing to do with her being a White House resident for 8 years, a senator from New York or that she’s served admirably as Secretary of State.

    It has nothing to do with her being the most politically and governance qualified presidential candidate ever, it’s because of her vagina.

    And similarly, I voted for Obama not because he’s way smarter than McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan, but because he’s black.


    Try to think through what you say first, before insulting more than half the country’s vote-casting acumen.

    Mark, great development in your article.
    Thanks for the laugh, much needed.

Comments are closed.