state of union speech trump

[Pozlover1]

7 minutes ago, takingdeepanal said:

The Goebbels playbook is STILL used to this day outside politics, as the 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics was all about aligning sport with war - and it's still being promoted this way in the 21st Century.

There’s a doc on television in the Third Reich. The picture quality was equal to our current shows due to a complex system of film and immediate transfer to video. Only in black and white of course. A few of the original films survived. The 1936 Olympics were televised to “viewing rooms” where thousands watched and small wood cabinet TV’s for the masses were being mass produced until the British declared war. There was a German station broadcasting from the Eiffel Tower for occupying Germans. The shows were exactly like ours. Cooking shows, instructional videos on how to be a  good citizen, highbrow classical music, musical variety shows and 20% pure bullshit propaganda about national values and the great victories of the Military. 

[Guest]

Puppet Masters of the USA

 

[beanna]

12 hours ago, takingdeepanal said:

The Goebbels playbook is STILL used to this day outside politics, as the 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics was all about aligning sport with war - and it's still being promoted this way in the 21st Century.

yes but it is most important to be aware of Dr Goebbles propaganda principles of using proaganda

by stating to the heads of all media once the Nazis were in full control

Propoganda works very subtly 

it is not what you say that is important,it is what you do not say that is of far higher importance,only tell them what they want to hear

and your messages must always be subliminal 

repeat over and over because such will eventually be accepted as FACT

Given such Donald knew exactly what he was saying at The State of The union address,by sticking to the above script

[ErosWired]

On 2/5/2020 at 11:31 AM, Pozlover1 said:

To me the concept of incompetent Governmental Elites who live like kings pushing the equality of poverty on the masses is a recipe for the collapse of a civilization. 

The irony is rich. The Orange Wannabe-King is the poster boy for incompetence, and you don’t get much more Governmentally Elite than President, especially if you’re giving non-Senate-confirmable elite jobs in the White House to the unelected Wannabe-Princess-of-America and her Wannabe-Prince. They not only live like elites but ostentatiously show it off, and Trump has no idea whatsoever what it means to be poor.

How anyone feels about the opposition is beside the point - the man is mentally unstable, patently corrupt, and by every metric unfit to hold the office. If you don’t like Democrats, fine, pick one of those spineless, gutless Republican quislings and campaign for him. But arguing to keep the Tangerine Tyrant just because you don’t like the other side is irresponsible.

[Guest hungandmean]

On 2/5/2020 at 5:35 PM, Pozlover1 said:

There’s a doc on television in the Third Reich. The picture quality was equal to our current shows due to a complex system of film and immediate transfer to video. Only in black and white of course. A few of the original films survived. The 1936 Olympics were televised to “viewing rooms” where thousands watched and small wood cabinet TV’s for the masses were being mass produced until the British declared war. There was a German station broadcasting from the Eiffel Tower for occupying Germans. The shows were exactly like ours. Cooking shows, instructional videos on how to be a  good citizen, highbrow classical music, musical variety shows and 20% pure bullshit propaganda about national values and the great victories of the Military. 

This is, from what I can tell, the last serious post from this festering pustule of pathetic Trump worshiping garbage.

He spent the greater part of a year just absolutely championing how fucking wonderful Trump was and how great he'd be for gays.

I wonder what this dumb fuck would have to say about the 400,000 dead to covid, or the insurrection.

SInce his profile seems just a little bit bitter about how things turned out.... hmm..

[BootmanLA]

Yes, he certainly does. And apparently has it in for this site and for our esteemed leader. 

[ConversionPiglet]

Please for the life (insert what ever higher power or lack of one you believe in) give these posts a rest.  Seriously the guy is past news; move on and look forward to the future.  Thanks

[Guest cumlvrpig]

On 2/5/2020 at 12:08 PM, evilqueerpig said:

Trickle down economics always makes me think of what Judge Judy says..."Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!"

Where/when has " trickle down economics" ever been used?  For that matter what is trickle down economics?  What economist defends trickle down economics?

[BootmanLA]

12 hours ago, cumlvrpig said:

Where/when has " trickle down economics" ever been used?  For that matter what is trickle down economics?  What economist defends trickle down economics?

While it isn't formally known by that name, "trickle down economics" is widely studied and promoted (under its more formal, ritzier-sounding name of "supply side economics") and was basically the economic policy of the US and many other countries from the beginning of the Reagan administration.

In a nutshell, TDE posits that the best way to promote economic growth is to boost the "supply" side of the economic picture - that is, cut taxes and regulations on business so that there's money money on the "supply" side of the equation, which will then be used to boost production, hire more people, and so forth. It's called "trickle down" because the idea is that the money pumped into the "supply" side trickles down through the workplace to boost the economic prospects of workers, who will be making more and thus living better. Underlying this theory is the notion that the money has to be put to use somewhere - if the business has more money available, of course it will expand itself and pay better and so forth, right? That money won't do businesses any good just sitting in the bank, so they'll put it to productive use! What could be smarter?

Unfortunately, that's not what the actual real-life experience has shown. The reality is that a business is only going to invest money into its operations if it feels like it will be a more productive use of the asset than, say, paying the owners higher wages or profits, or investing in overseas expansions that have lower operating costs, or whatever. And that, in part, is predicated on whether there's even demand for expanding the market for their product or services. If there isn't, any money pumped into the supply side there simply enriches the suppliers. And as we've seen over the last 40 years, for the most part middle and working class wages in the U.S. have stagnated in real terms, while the upper echelons of the economy acquired massive wealth. That wealth isn't "trickling down" anywhere; the rich are just buying fourth or fifth mansions, yachts that require a secondary supply yacht to actually operate, trips into space, or whatever.

Demand-side economics suggests the opposite: if you can boost demand by enhancing the ability of consumers to buy, that money doesn't get hoarded like rich people's extra cash, but instead get spent - poorer families spend more on food so that kids don't go hungry, for instance. Or maybe the kid gets braces now instead of four years from now. Or, god forbid, they actually get to take a week of vacation somewhere, spending on some accommodations and food and entertainment for the first time in seven years. Whatever it's spent on, the point is that money pumped into the demand economy (again, through tax cuts, or direct transfers like the stimulus payments, or whatever) are much more likely to have economic impact than supply-side priming.

Nonetheless, right-wing economists (of whom there are plenty) continue to spout supply-side/TDE as the solution to everything, and in the face of evidence that it hasn't worked, only double down and say the problem is that we didn't go far enough - that we shouldn't tax income at all, for instance, replacing income tax with a national sales tax; or that we should keep cutting regulations and let industry run rampant. Basically, supply-side/TDE has become a system for ensuring the poor stay poor and the rich get richer, because economic growth under supply-side economics always benefits those with the supply.

[Guest]

On 2/4/2021 at 6:32 PM, ConversionPiglet said:

(insert what ever higher power or lack of one you believe in)

Uhm.....: Donald J. Trump...?  😉  

 😈

[Guest cumlvrpig]

On 7/28/2021 at 10:10 AM, BootmanLA said:

While it isn't formally known by that name, "trickle down economics" is widely studied and promoted (under its more formal, ritzier-sounding name of "supply side economics") and was basically the economic policy of the US and many other countries from the beginning of the Reagan administration.

In a nutshell, TDE posits that the best way to promote economic growth is to boost the "supply" side of the economic picture - that is, cut taxes and regulations on business so that there's money money on the "supply" side of the equation, which will then be used to boost production, hire more people, and so forth. It's called "trickle down" because the idea is that the money pumped into the "supply" side trickles down through the workplace to boost the economic prospects of workers, who will be making more and thus living better.

Erm no.  According to the great Thomas Sowell "trickle down economics" goes all the way back to FDR that S.O.B.

 

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, cumlvrpig said:

Erm no.  According to the great Thomas Sowell "trickle down economics" goes all the way back to FDR that S.O.B

Oh, as a theory kicked around by economists in ivory towers, yes, supply-side bullshit goes way back.

 But it didn't gain credence among politicians, who used to understand how the world actually works, until the Reagan era (and I include the period leading up to his election, when he started promoting it, as part of the "era").

Ever since some idiots in the Reagan administration deliberately misinterpreted the Laffer Curve and sold it to the uneducated masses, it's been an article of faith for conservatives even in the face of ample historical evidence that it didn't work.

[NEDenver]

In the 1800s, I’d was Horse and Sparrow, but it’s always been propaganda to make rich people more money at the expense of everyone else.

[Guest]

On 2/6/2020 at 9:04 AM, beanna said:

yes but it is most important to be aware of Dr Goebbles propaganda principles of using proaganda

by stating to the heads of all media once the Nazis were in full control

Propoganda works very subtly 

it is not what you say that is important,it is what you do not say that is of far higher importance,only tell them what they want to hear

and your messages must always be subliminal 

repeat over and over because such will eventually be accepted as FACT

Given such Donald knew exactly what he was saying at The State of The union address,by sticking to the above script

Goebbels' propaganda may have worked at the time but Lenin and Stalin's as well as Marx, Engels, and Mao as well as homophobic/biphobic/racist Castro and Che were far worse, more insidious, and have caused more deaths and destruction...

[Guest cumlvrpig]

On 8/10/2021 at 12:48 PM, TotalTop said:

Goebbels' propaganda may have worked at the time but Lenin and Stalin's as well as Marx, Engels, and Mao as well as homophobic/biphobic/racist Castro and Che were far worse, more insidious, and have caused more deaths and destruction...

Too true.  I'm surprised someone hasn't intoned the bullshit "that wasn't real communism.