Okay, I am the "Lonna" you have read about on "Real America." I am going to make a few comments right off the top of my head from what I have researched and written before. Because they are off the top of my head, they will not be exact quotes and may be off a bit (but not much.) I am not going to take the time to fact check, but you can check these facts yourself if you simply take a little time.
My hero is Dwight Eisenhower for a number of reasons, the foremost being he was a thoroughly decent man, the fling he may or may not have had with Kay Sommersby not withstanding. I have read many of the books he wrote, the letters he wrote to his wife that were put into a book, etc. A recent biography of him by Michael Somebody. It is a fact that during his presidency the richest among us were taxed at 91% of their top income and corporations at more than 50% and against Republican pressure Ike refused to support lowering those rates. Tax rates remained high on the rich until Reagan came in he lowered the top rate from 78% (that number might not be quite right) to 28% while increasing military spending exorbitantly. He also introduced measures that made it easier and more profitable for companies to move overseas. That is when the U.S. began to amass an enormous debt that it took Clinton to bring to finally bring to a surplus. Eisenhower would have been incensed about fighting a war and pretending it does not require sacrifice on the part of anyone besides the soldiers and their families. It is probable the wars of the last 8 years were the only wars fought in this countrys history that did not involve raising taxes to pay for them. Instead Bush and the Republicans pushed tax cut after tax cut after tax cut. THAT is at least PART of the reason we are in such a mess now. The government AND the media act as though there are no wars going on that need extra revenue to be raised to pay for them!! Ike wrote about such to Mamie. I have read that he got $600 a month, at least to begin with during WWII, but am not sure that is accurate. However, he DID write that he did not think anyone should make more money than the soldiers and that he LIKED to pay 'what the government thinks I owe them.' An ex Republican Senator from Kentucky -- can't think of his name right at the moment -- wrote about it as well when he wrote WHY he was voting for Kerry in 2004. He said, 'Lyndon Johnson said we could have guns and butter at the same time. This administration says we can have guns, butter, and no taxes. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is not true, and we live with it to our peril...' Ike's son John voted for Kerry, too, and wrote his reasons why. The "liberal media" did not give much play to EITHER of those Kerry endorsements by prominent Republicans.
Lonna tried to post further commentary, but Blogger didn't publish it. Below is that commentary.
-------------------------------------
A soldier wrote home from Iraq that he thought we went to war with Iraq to pay for the asbestos lawsuits filed against it. Halliburton was indisputably the largest benefactor of the wars. Dick Cheney worked as a bagman for Halliburton the entire time he was vice-president. Bush, Sr.'s Carlyle Group (which he did not resign from til well into his son's presidency) benefited greatly as well. You really need to read two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket." The entire little booklet. You can find it online. It is about 30 pages, I think. HE said we fight for corporations. That he suspected as much when he was a general, but after he got out he REALLY came to know it was true. He said the way to stop war was to take the profit out of it. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark said 'The people don't rule here, wealth rules, the corporations rule..' There is a revolving door between government and defense contractors, banks, etc. Former CEO of Goldman Sach's becomes Sec. of Treasury and sees to it Sach's is bailed out. Top people in the defense department go to work for defense contractors and get them contracts. On a more personal note, I do not agree with everything the person you are maligning thinks. I do think she tends to demonize all Republicans, however, I do know from experience she will drop anything to help anyone and lives very simply. She is one of the kindest and most generous people one could ever meet. Her kindness and generosity have been taken advantage of by many people, including myself until I moved 1200 miles away. The "Liberal Media" is such a joke!! What Democrat has gotten the coverage Sarah Palin gets?? What liberal personality dominates the airwaves?? There is something Ron posted on real america addressing just that. It was from the Denver Post. People are TOLD by the RIGHT WING FRINGE who dominate the airwaves that the media is "liberal" and they take what they say as gospel. When as many people know who Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers are as know who Rush Limbaugh is, THEN, perhaps one could say we have a liberal media. Former Minn. Senator Eugene McCarthy said he pretty much gave up on the future of this country when equal time was done away with.
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you taking the time, and I also appreciate your defense of Cat. But Cat is a hater of the sort she describes right-wingers of being. You say she is generous to others. So are so many of the people she denigrates as haters, such as Rush Limbaugh. My main complaint with her is her refusal to lift a finger to support any of her attacks with something akin to evidence. For some, Ron included, defending comments is unnecessary because we mean-spirited conservatives will only rip them to shreds, rationalizing our sins, yada, yada, yada. In a court of law, one is required to prove their assertions against the accused. The accused has the right to expect it.
As to your comments regarding the lib media, I would first remind you, as the right must always remind, that the term "lib media" or "mainstream media" refers to news alone. Limbaugh renders his opinion and analysis of events. Brett Baier reports the news. Keith Olberman renders his laughably lame facsimile of opinion and analysis. Brian Williams reports the news. This distinction is important. As far as news broadcasting, there is FoxNews on the right and everyone else on the left. No other network, beyond perhaps the Christian cable station, can seriously be considered right-wing. Most of the major print sources of which we hear cited are blatantly left-leaning, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, the LA Times, etc. Though there are good conservative periodicals, like National Review and others, in the realm of newspapers, one must often content one's self with "less baised" rags. My local paper draws heavily on AP, but it's own editorial staff routinely lean left.
One of the ways that one can see the leftism of the news world is in polls that ask journalists how they vote. Most, to the tune of 70% or better, vote Democrat. The recent Jourolist story supports the notion of left-leaning journalism.
And then there's a host of indicators regarding the way stories are reported that demonstrate the bias, such as when party affiliation of a person accused of impropriety is mentioned. How stories of culture are reported or if they're reported. For example, the recent tragedy of teen suicide has been trumpeted as evidence of homosexual-bashing when the real facts don't bear that out. Indeed, the story of the dude secretly filmed having sex with a man in his dorm room doesn't even amount to the bullying it was reported as. And which MSM source has reported on the CDC findings regarding the higher percentage of STDs among the homosexual population?
The term "lib media" refers to how particular stories are covered by the mainstream media, or if they are covered at all.
As to Goodman and Moyers, they are not unknown to the general population. That someone like a Rush Limbaugh attracts more listeners or viewers is not what determines the leanings of the media in general. That just shows who the people want to hear and who they trust to deliver the info for which they listen in the first place.
And that's the real measure that idiots like Eugene McCarthy doesn't understand. If we're forced to broadcast all sides equally, but the listening/viewing public doesn't buy into one side or the other, what good have they done? The problem isn't access to information. It's that those who listen don't buy lefty versions of events, and lefties don't care enough to listen anyway (otherwise Air America would be all the rage).
Regarding Butler, I'm glad you said his little book was available on line. I found it and read it before responding here. His name was put forth to support the notion of war-profiteering and that wars are started to make money. I didn't find anything in the booklet to support that. He rails on about how various industries profited during the WWI. What he fails to provide is evidence that manufacturers were inflating prices to make those profits. War increases demand. What's so hard to understand about that? It seems Butler's expertise is not in business or politics and I think he needed a bit more to make his case.
His recommendations are equally flawed, as he doesn't realize that living expenses are greatly reduced for the soldier so that his pay, as poor as everyone agrees it is, does reflect the fact that a soldier doesn't need to buy clothes or pay rent or mortgages or feed himself. (I'm not forgetting the wife and kids at home here. I'm just spelling out the basic concept.)
He also makes some incredible assumptions about the economy to pretend it wouldn't be negatively impacted, and greatly so, for all who are connected to manufacturing products for the war effort to live on the same pay as the average soldier. The ripple effect on the economy would be disastrous.
I have presented links to articles with stats from gov't sources showing that GW Bush's foray into Iraq did not put us into economic misery like the left wants all to believe. Spending was always the main culprit for that. The fact is that for most of the Bush years, growth was good and considering a couple of major hurricanes, the war on two fronts, 9/11 to name the major events, growth was very good.
You're not the first to state here that Reagan was responsible for driving down our manufacturing base by lowering tax rates. Maybe YOU can provide proof of this connection.
6 comments:
Okay, I am the "Lonna" you have read about on "Real America." I am going to make a few comments right off the top of my head from what I have researched and written before. Because they are off the top of my head, they will not be exact quotes and may be off a bit (but not much.) I am not going to take the time to fact check, but you can check these facts yourself if you simply take a little time.
My hero is Dwight Eisenhower for a number of reasons, the foremost being he was a thoroughly decent man, the fling he may or may not have had with Kay Sommersby not withstanding. I have read many of the books he wrote, the letters he wrote to his wife that were put into a book, etc. A recent biography of him by Michael Somebody. It is a fact that during his presidency the richest among us were taxed at 91% of their top income and corporations at more than 50% and against Republican pressure Ike refused to support lowering those rates. Tax rates remained high on the rich until Reagan came in he lowered the top rate from 78% (that number might not be quite right) to 28% while increasing military spending exorbitantly. He also introduced measures that made it easier and more profitable for companies to move overseas. That is when the U.S. began to amass an enormous debt that it took Clinton to bring to finally bring to a surplus.
Eisenhower would have been incensed about fighting a war and pretending it does not require sacrifice on the part of anyone besides the soldiers and their families. It is probable the wars of the last 8 years were the only wars fought in this countrys history that did not involve raising taxes to pay for them. Instead Bush and the Republicans pushed tax cut after tax cut after tax cut. THAT is at least PART of the reason we are in such a mess now. The government AND the media act as though there are no wars going on that need extra revenue to be raised to pay for them!! Ike wrote about such to Mamie. I have read that he got $600 a month, at least to begin with during WWII, but am not sure that is accurate. However, he DID write that he did not think anyone should make more money than the soldiers and that he LIKED to pay 'what the government thinks I owe them.' An ex Republican Senator from Kentucky -- can't think of his name right at the moment -- wrote about it as well when he wrote WHY he was voting for Kerry in 2004. He said, 'Lyndon Johnson said we could have guns and butter at the same time. This administration says we can have guns, butter, and no taxes. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is not true, and we live with it to our peril...' Ike's son John voted for Kerry, too, and wrote his reasons why. The "liberal media" did not give much play to EITHER of those Kerry endorsements by prominent Republicans.
Lonna tried to post further commentary, but Blogger didn't publish it. Below is that commentary.
-------------------------------------
A soldier wrote home from Iraq that he thought we went to war with Iraq to pay for the asbestos lawsuits filed against it. Halliburton was indisputably the largest benefactor of the wars. Dick Cheney worked as a bagman for Halliburton the entire time he was vice-president. Bush, Sr.'s Carlyle Group (which he did not resign from til well into his son's presidency) benefited greatly as well. You really need to read two time Congressional Medal of Honor winner General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket." The entire little booklet. You can find it online. It is about 30 pages, I think. HE said we fight for corporations. That he suspected as much when he was a general, but after he got out he REALLY came to know it was true. He said the way to stop war was to take the profit out of it. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark said 'The people don't rule here, wealth rules, the corporations rule..' There is a revolving door between government and defense contractors, banks, etc. Former CEO of Goldman Sach's becomes Sec. of Treasury and sees to it Sach's is bailed out. Top people in the defense department go to work for defense contractors and get them contracts.
On a more personal note, I do not agree with everything the person you are maligning thinks. I do think she tends to demonize all Republicans, however, I do know from experience she will drop anything to help anyone and lives very simply. She is one of the kindest and most generous people one could ever meet. Her kindness and generosity have been taken advantage of by many people, including myself until I moved 1200 miles away.
The "Liberal Media" is such a joke!! What Democrat has gotten the coverage Sarah Palin gets?? What liberal personality dominates the airwaves?? There is something Ron posted on real america addressing just that. It was from the Denver Post. People are TOLD by the RIGHT WING FRINGE who dominate the airwaves that the media is "liberal" and they take what they say as gospel. When as many people know who Amy Goodman and Bill Moyers are as know who Rush Limbaugh is, THEN, perhaps one could say we have a liberal media. Former Minn. Senator Eugene McCarthy said he pretty much gave up on the future of this country when equal time was done away with.
Lonna,
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you taking the time, and I also appreciate your defense of Cat. But Cat is a hater of the sort she describes right-wingers of being. You say she is generous to others. So are so many of the people she denigrates as haters, such as Rush Limbaugh. My main complaint with her is her refusal to lift a finger to support any of her attacks with something akin to evidence. For some, Ron included, defending comments is unnecessary because we mean-spirited conservatives will only rip them to shreds, rationalizing our sins, yada, yada, yada. In a court of law, one is required to prove their assertions against the accused. The accused has the right to expect it.
As to your comments regarding the lib media, I would first remind you, as the right must always remind, that the term "lib media" or "mainstream media" refers to news alone. Limbaugh renders his opinion and analysis of events. Brett Baier reports the news. Keith Olberman renders his laughably lame facsimile of opinion and analysis. Brian Williams reports the news. This distinction is important. As far as news broadcasting, there is FoxNews on the right and everyone else on the left. No other network, beyond perhaps the Christian cable station, can seriously be considered right-wing. Most of the major print sources of which we hear cited are blatantly left-leaning, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, the LA Times, etc. Though there are good conservative periodicals, like National Review and others, in the realm of newspapers, one must often content one's self with "less baised" rags. My local paper draws heavily on AP, but it's own editorial staff routinely lean left.
One of the ways that one can see the leftism of the news world is in polls that ask journalists how they vote. Most, to the tune of 70% or better, vote Democrat. The recent Jourolist story supports the notion of left-leaning journalism.
And then there's a host of indicators regarding the way stories are reported that demonstrate the bias, such as when party affiliation of a person accused of impropriety is mentioned. How stories of culture are reported or if they're reported. For example, the recent tragedy of teen suicide has been trumpeted as evidence of homosexual-bashing when the real facts don't bear that out. Indeed, the story of the dude secretly filmed having sex with a man in his dorm room doesn't even amount to the bullying it was reported as. And which MSM source has reported on the CDC findings regarding the higher percentage of STDs among the homosexual population?
The term "lib media" refers to how particular stories are covered by the mainstream media, or if they are covered at all.
As to Goodman and Moyers, they are not unknown to the general population. That someone like a Rush Limbaugh attracts more listeners or viewers is not what determines the leanings of the media in general. That just shows who the people want to hear and who they trust to deliver the info for which they listen in the first place.
And that's the real measure that idiots like Eugene McCarthy doesn't understand. If we're forced to broadcast all sides equally, but the listening/viewing public doesn't buy into one side or the other, what good have they done? The problem isn't access to information. It's that those who listen don't buy lefty versions of events, and lefties don't care enough to listen anyway (otherwise Air America would be all the rage).
Regarding Butler, I'm glad you said his little book was available on line. I found it and read it before responding here. His name was put forth to support the notion of war-profiteering and that wars are started to make money. I didn't find anything in the booklet to support that. He rails on about how various industries profited during the WWI. What he fails to provide is evidence that manufacturers were inflating prices to make those profits. War increases demand. What's so hard to understand about that? It seems Butler's expertise is not in business or politics and I think he needed a bit more to make his case.
His recommendations are equally flawed, as he doesn't realize that living expenses are greatly reduced for the soldier so that his pay, as poor as everyone agrees it is, does reflect the fact that a soldier doesn't need to buy clothes or pay rent or mortgages or feed himself. (I'm not forgetting the wife and kids at home here. I'm just spelling out the basic concept.)
He also makes some incredible assumptions about the economy to pretend it wouldn't be negatively impacted, and greatly so, for all who are connected to manufacturing products for the war effort to live on the same pay as the average soldier. The ripple effect on the economy would be disastrous.
I have presented links to articles with stats from gov't sources showing that GW Bush's foray into Iraq did not put us into economic misery like the left wants all to believe. Spending was always the main culprit for that. The fact is that for most of the Bush years, growth was good and considering a couple of major hurricanes, the war on two fronts, 9/11 to name the major events, growth was very good.
You're not the first to state here that Reagan was responsible for driving down our manufacturing base by lowering tax rates. Maybe YOU can provide proof of this connection.
This is an awesome song. Thanks, Marshall, and Happy Thanksgiving.
Post a Comment