All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
We are witnessing great (and meaningless) political theater.
Every four years, two minority political parties spend hundred of millions of dollars collected from special interests. They use this money to flood our senses with meaningless sound bites and photo ops. None of which have anything to do with how they will actually mismanage our Nation, ignore the will of the majority or pursue their own (not our) agenda.
Both parties want their turn to waste our money, devalue our currency, enrich their supporters and feed their deficit spending addiction.
Both parties are phantom choices. Both parties are opposite sides of the same coin.
If you take off your political party bias colored glasses, you can see both parties have essentially produced the same results since the end of WW2; more debt, more war, more speicial interest enrichment and more inflation. While they are lving large at great public expense and pointing their fingers at each other.
America, we are at war with two minority political parties and they are winning.
We can now flush and go back to sleep.
Nothing wrong with being a cynic, but it's fair to say that we wouldn't live in the same world now if important elections like Carter/Reagan or Bush/Gore had gone differently - and that's not taking a particular favourtism to the political colour. The very fabric of their intended policies were different, as would the trajectories the reverse results may have engendered.
You did say post-WW2, but imagine that Chamberlain had been replaced by Churchill prior to the derided 'appeasement policy'. The world would potentially be very different now. These are, of course, all hypotheticals, but to lazily suggest the party in charge doesn't matter sits uneasily with me - it's all a little conspiratorial.
I've always maintained that both parties in the States, and the two major parties in the UK for that matter, want to better society - they simply have different priorities and means of enacting those priorities.
So, to say that both parties are useless is one thing (and you very could well be right - I'm just putting forward the alternative argument), but to say it's a false choice and doesn't matter either way is something I fundamentally disagree with.
The paths offered by Romney and Obama really are very different. I get that you're saying the results of any election is an oscillating scale of gargantuan waste either way (and therefore doesn't matter as you reason who wins), before being cancelled out next time around when the other side wins, but the analysis must consider the alternative reality that failed to materialise to fully comprehend the impact of elections.
The paths offered by both Romney and Obama are just words.
Obama promised, vowed and pledged to do many things. What he did was piss away $5T dollars and print enough fiat currency to rise gas and groceries to nose bleed high.
Point being, there is a serious disconnect between campaign promises and what you get in America with zero accountability.
The real breakdown in this country began with Reagan, the father of modern Voodoo Economics. Reagan quadrupled the National Debt to kick start the economy and Nixon stopped currency convertibility to gold by Executive Order. The rest is history.
Reagan showed those who followed what serious mischief could be done with deficit spending and Nixon paid for the Viet Nam War by printing fiat currency. Deficit Spending and Currency Devaluation are the Kiss of Death to any nation. No country can survive decades of this type of financial mismanagment.
The long sugar rush is over. The federal goverment now prints money to pay the interest on the money they already owe.
The paths offered by both Romney and Obama are just words.
Obama promised, vowed and pledged to do many things. What he did was piss away $5T dollars and print enough fiat currency to rise gas and groceries to nose bleed high.
Point being, there is a serious disconnect between campaign promises and what you get in America with zero accountability.
The real breakdown in this country began with Reagan, the father of modern Voodoo Economics. Reagan quadrupled the National Debt to kick start the economy and Nixon stopped currency convertibility to gold by Executive Order…The rest is history.
Reagan showed those who followed what serious mischief could be done with deficit spending and currency devaluation.
There will always be parties, and powerful interests will always accrue to and influence one side of the other.
This "WE THE PEOPLE" does not exist as some separate entity that everyone is screwing. People have different concerns and different ideas about how things should be done. There will never be one party that represents "the people".
Reagonomics worked, but did to a degree set a bad example. Borrowing money temporarily in order to enact general tax reductions does stimulate growth. If managed right, that growth pays back the money borrowed.
That's the real story of Clinton. The growth created by Reagan eventually turned into a surplus under Clinton. Yes, there was a recession and a slow down in between, but overall it was 2 decades of growth unleashed by reduced taxes and reduced regulation. And had not spending gone up, the surpluses would have appeared much earlier. Bottom line: it worked. There is really no question about it. If Carter had won that election, we'd be living in a much, much poorer world today.
But XL is right in that some people have misused things by over pumping the fed in order to stimulate growth. I think part of this motivation is political survival, and both parties are guilty. Because of pensions, a large percentage of Americans now have a stake in the stock market. And using the fed to keep the market afloat has become political necessity. But as XL said, this leads to inflation when over used, which hurts people who depend on savings or wages.
BTW, under Reagan, the fed considered its primary goal as fighting inflation.
While I don't agree on his analysis of Obama, anyone with a bit of sense about them can read between the lines on how he views this embarrassing set of far right "dimwits" that characterises the Republican Party right now.
I didn't take it as an endorsement. I tried to find points of common ground with someone who seems like a very pleasant and educated gentleman.
But there is no serious question that Reagan turned things around. It was about as dramatic and poignant example of a group of leaders saying they will do something, doing it, and then have having it work spectacularly.
Lefties don't like it. And they've done everything in their power to twist things to suggest otherwise. Just like their Lefty forebears twisted reality in the 1930s in trying to spin the Soviet Union as a wonderful place. Thousands of American idealists went there as a result and died in Stalin's camps. The price for liberal fantasy can be heavy.
Just glanced through your linked article, Andrew. Not a bad article, I agree with much of it. You do understand, though, that this guy is criticizing Bush and Romney for being...yup...too much like the Democrats.
He's criticizing the Republicans for being too liberal! This guy is a conservative purist. A tea party type. You did read it, right? Are you joining the tea party now? Good for you!
From the article:
"I remain convinced that if more conservatives had spoken up earlier during the Age of Bush, the routs Republicans endured in 2006 and 2008 could have been avoided. Nancy Pelosi would have never been speaker and Barack Obama would be working on his fourth autobiography instead of his second term. But Republicans chose instead to shut their mouths, circle the wagons and compromise their values.
Margaret Thatcher was tough and unapologetic about what she believed. Ronald Reagan was tough and unapologetic about what he believed. They won their campaigns, changed their party and transformed their countries because they were conservatives who dared to tell voters they planned to radically transform their governments. They got elected and did just that."
You think this guy is criticizing Romney and Bush for being a dimwit from the far right? lol lol lol
edit: I just saw it was Scarborough who wrote! He's the former Republican Congressman who is the conservative on MSNBC.
You think this guy is criticizing Romney and Bush for being a dimwit from the far right? lol lol lol
No, and I didn't say that.
What I did say was: "While I don't agree on his analysis of Obama, anyone with a bit of sense about them can read between the lines on how he views this embarrassing set of far right "dimwits" that characterises the Republican Party right now."
Demonstrably different from the conclusion you took from my comment. As you'll see from my previous comments, I believe Mitt Romney is beholden to a far right base that will lose him the election. Unlike you, I don't think I can etch-a-sketch each time I post. I also place a bit of faith in someone staying on the same page of a conversation, as opposed to twisting words and trying to tease out subverted meanings.
Joe Scarborough is on record as saying the tea party/far right are a joke. He looks at someone like Rick Santorum and sees a political joke. Trying to tease out a message that he was voicing in 2003 what the tea party/far right started doing since '09 is obtuse and flat wrong. He's actually said that in 4 years time the Republican Party will look back on their primary season this year as an embarrassment. Like the vast majority of the planet, he views the far right as a stain on your party. It's why he's referred to as a RINO. If you think his point - in the selectively chosen quote you put up here - is an endorsement of far right politics, you haven't read the article.
Also, don't be surprised that I read right-wing commentary - I see it as a way to challenge myself and my views. Same as anyone else with a bit of sense. It's only extremists who shutdown compromise and alternative views.
Just glanced through your linked article, Andrew. Not a bad article, I agree with much of it. You do understand, though, that this guy is criticizing Bush and Romney for being...yup...too much like the Democrats.
He's criticizing the Republicans for being too liberal! This guy is a conservative purist. A tea party type. You did read it, right? Are you joining the tea party now? Good for you!
Seeing as you think Scarborough is a "tea party type", this is just too good an opportunity to poke fun at this miscalculation of yours a little (all done in a British jesting way):
I'll be kind and acknowledge this from you: "edit: I just saw it was Scarborough who wrote! He's the former Republican Congressman who is the conservative on MSNBC. "
Even though you didn't retract: "You do understand, though, that this guy is criticizing Bush and Romney for being...yup...too much like the Democrats.
He's criticizing the Republicans for being too liberal! This guy is a conservative purist. A tea party type."
I understand that, before I mention this, it is two days old and has already been touched upon but I must've somehow glossed over the first time around.
I've always maintained that both parties in the States...want to better society - they simply have different priorities and means of enacting those priorities.
Are you serious? Neither one gives a fuck about bettering society. That's not their job. Their job, as the government at any level (local, state, federal, what have you), is to keep whatever power they've already accumulated and expand it wherever possible. Both Democrats and Republicans want the government to be in charge of everything.
The only reason the parties exist is, as you said, "they simply have different priorities and means of enacting those priorities."
Liberals want every aspect of their life run by the federal government. They want to be told what to eat, wear, where to go and just give their paycheck (from their government job) over in an "Everything is ours"-type mentality. Final ruling: Communist Dictatorship.
Conservatives have a very similar future, with two major glaring differences. They wouldn't want every aspect of their life run by the federal government (but it wouldn't matter because if you went against their rules, you'd likely be executed). The other is that you would have no paycheck to hand over because there would be no true jobs for the people on the bottom. Only the rich would have the money and everyone on the bottom would have to turn to crime, just to survive. Final ruling: Fascist Plutocracy.
Wanna know why I don't trust any politician I see? That's why. No politician in the country (United States) makes it to either Governor, House, Senate or Presidency without selling off their beliefs to the highest bidder.
Since the time when George Washington took office in 1789, nothing has changed about our government and nothing will. This country is, was and will always be run by a group of old, white guys (back in their day, they were the only ones allowed to vote, anyway) who control all the money in this country and they can shut it down anytime they please. And, for anyone who's going to say, "Well, what about Barack Obama? He's not white." That's true, he's not white. He's also not in charge of this country. I mean, raise your hands--anyone--if you believe the President is actually the person in charge of the United States of America. It's not so much a problem that you believe that as it is that it's not even remotely close to being true.
Ironically, Scarborough is kind of like Romney, or John Kerry on the Dem side. He's the kind of guy that puts his finger in the air, sees what way the wind is blowing, then chooses a direction. That's why most conservatives don't trust him.
BTW, I had just heard the other day that he is considering a run for President in 2016. So that article in Politico(which is allied with MSNBC and therefore generally has a strong liberal bias) is just an attempt by Joe to set himself up, differentiate himself from Bush and Romney. It's just more politics.
But clearly his argument suggests Bush and Romney are too liberal. They are inclined to spend too much and do other things in an attempt to win over the center, in contrast to Thatcher and Reagan who stood on their principles.
Scarborough may have a negative opinion of the Tea Party. Or he may not, because remember, he's a guy who wants to please, and he works with diehard Leftists at MSNBC.
Whatever the case, he is arguing that Bush and Romney are not conservative enough. Joe's positions are Tea Party-like, and I am entertained that you posted a link to this article in trying to argue that Romney is a far right dim wit.
I don't care for Romney. He was governor of my state, I never cared for him. I always called him "the conservative John Kerry". His position can change by the hour. He says what he thinks people want to hear.
But he is no dim wit, and he's not a bigot. He's not even conservative. Trust me on that last one. The guy's pretty liberal. If you are a liberal, he's the Republican you want to win.
He's also competent. Unlike Obama, he will go to his daily intelligence briefings. His golf bag will get dusty, if he has one. He will go to work every day and do the job.
How the Libyan consulate could have had no security(except 30 Libyans, who ran away) is inconceivable. How there could be no security on 9/11 is mind blowing. And now it looks like they had a warning of trouble 48 hrs before, but didn't even alert the embassies.
We've already seen corruption on a scale not seen in a century in this White House, in some ways, on a scale never before seen. Now we are witnessing complete incompetency. The President golfs and campaigns. That's about what one would expect from someone whose only job was as a community organizer, and had no executive experience.
And no, he was not a Constitutional Scholar. He taught a 2 hour seminar on community organizing related law. That's it. He's not a professor.
He was a no show kind of Senator that lead on no issues, did nothing remotely important. He gives speeches. That's it. He's a bright guy, but he never had to have a job, so now that he does, he's lost.
"Conservatives have a very similar future... would have no paycheck to hand over because there would be no true jobs for the people on the bottom. Only the rich would have the money and everyone on the bottom would have to turn to crime, just to survive. Final ruling: Fascist Plutocracy."
Blond, that conservative simply does not exist anywhere other than a Hollywood set. He just doesn't.
The poor don't pay taxes. How are the rich(and I am not rich) taking their money?
"Since the time when George Washington took office in 1789, nothing has changed about our government and nothing will. This country is, was and will always be run by a group of old, white guys."
More Hollywood movie type stuff. One thing about this country people don't understand: social mobility is still the dominant factor. The powerful families from 1800 have no power now. None. Today's richest are generally people that made their own fortune. There are plenty who might be living off fortunes their parents made. But if you track it over the generations, the super rich families usually evenatually fall back, and new families rise.
If someone goes out and doesn't want to work or live responsibly, invests much of his income into narcotics, doesn't value education, has numerous children...is he oppressed? Does the successful family that lives responsibly, creates wealth...do they owe that guy something?
In this country, if you work hard, or you have talent, if you live responsibly, you will get ahead. There's good luck and bad luck, and there are people with advantages and disadvantages. But you will make it if you want to.
And Republicans want you to make it. They just don't think anyone is doing you a favor by making you completely dependent on the federal government. That only entrenches your poverty, encourages the behavior that created it in the first place.
I actually agree with Andrew: usually the matter is two different opinions about how best to help people make it. One side thinks the government needs to be heavily involved. The other side thinks that just creates dependency and exacerbates the problem, even creates it.
Human beings are not so bad that anyone wants to see someone else suffering and living in poverty. When you start thinking that, it's a dangerous road.
You might think I demonize liberals. I don't. I might blame them a lot, but I think they mean well. Understand that conservatives mean well also, and give to charities, even if you exclude church giving, at a much higher rate than liberals. Numerous studies support this. Conservatives care, they want to help, they just don't trust government.