"...The perfect recipe for the destruction of America. Do you see it happening?? A sobering reminder. Almost exactly sixty years ago since Russia's Khrushchev delivered his message to the UN; ... prediction for America. TV coverage of him banging his shoe on the podium. At that time, the word 'communism' was feared throughout our nation. Now here is some food for thought if it does not make us choke! Do you remember September 29, 1959? THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE: "Your children's children will live under communism, You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you will finally wake up and find you already have Communism. We will not have to fight you; We will so weaken your economy, until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands." "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Remember, socialism leads to Communism So, how do you create a Socialistic State? There are 8 levels of control; read the following recipe: 1) Healthcare - Control healthcare and you control the people. 2) Poverty - Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them. 3) Debt - Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. 4) Gun Control - Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government That way, you are able to create a police state. 5) Welfare - Take control of every aspect (food, housing, income) of their lives because that will make them fully dependent on the government. 6) Education - Take control of what people read and listen to and take control of what children learn in school. 7) Religion - Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools because the people need to believe in ONLY the government knowing what is best for the people. 8) Class Warfare - Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. Eliminate the middle class. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor. Sounds like everything here is on the Democrat agenda!!!!..." ____________________________________________________________ Ring a bell, anybody?
Sounds like this quote is straight of the Communist Manifesto. Rules for Radicals is another book embraced by the likes of ANTIFA and certain Democrat politicians such as Hillary Clinton and maybe Nancy Pelosi. A potential irony is Hillary or another prominent Democrat seems to want to be leader of the Communist World, probably irritating Putin and maybe even XI, a little. Perhaps the US will eventually gain political control of resource rich Russia. Wouldn’t that be an interesting turn of events?
I will just answer 1 point. Hope you recall President named Reagan, he was the one who started our nation under mantra deficits do not matter. It was democrat Clinton who turned deficits into surpluses, only to be turned back to deficits by his GOP successor. So yeah, the bell does ring.
The Republican controlled Congress initiated the effort to balance the budget and Bill Clinton signed off on it. Attached below is a part of an article on a bit of the history and thinking at the time. What, then, accounts for Clinton's vacillation, the continual narrowing of difference, the hemming and hawing? The vagaries of his domestic policy can be sensibly understood only if we separate his economic and political strategies. Clinton has wavered not because of his economic policy, but despite it. Fiscal conservatism has never been thought of as a political winner. Voters might prefer austerity as an abstract proposition, but they actually favor politicians who deliver concrete benefits-or so most political observers believe. Republican strategist Jude Wanniski has called this the "dueling Santa Claus" theory-Democrats played the spending Santa Claus, Republicans the tax-cutting Santa Claus. Clinton's campaign for the presidency certainly conformed to this thinking. He promised to reduce the deficit but did not emphasize the point, and he promoted a middle-class tax cut. While necessity forced him to abandon this latter pledge and concentrate on the deficit in his first year, after the Republican congressional landslide in 1994, he abruptly switched directions once more. Clinton began to listen to Dick Morris, an adviser inclined toward conservatism, rapprochement with the GOP, and general political amorality. During this Morris-influenced period, Clinton turned away from the kind of economics he set out in 1993. In 1995 Clinton reissued his promise of a middle-class tax cut and then set out a conciliatory line toward Republicans in Congress that culminated in his signing the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Many economists who consider Clinton's 1993 budget to be the pinnacle achievement of his presidency-including many who have worked for his administration-also regard the 1997 deal as anathema. The central conceit of the agreement, balancing the budget within five years, was a symbolic goal that would be achieved by mandating that future Congresses allow for unrealistically low levels of domestic spending. Worse still, the deal reduced estate and capital gains taxes, another economically dubious move that overwhelmingly benefited the very rich. These compromises by Clinton were an attempt to re-ingratiate himself with suburban, upscale voters. https://prospect.org/power/clinton-s-bequest/
My point exactly. It takes a strong and great leader to achieve balanced budget. what the did the current WH occupant did, he doubled the deficit during economic expansion, through tax cuts for top echelon. Pure stupidity and madness.
Totally agree with you re: a balanced budget. I'd like to know, however, if you had issues with it before Trump as well. Because you don't mention anything about Obama in your above Presidential narrative (Reagan, Clinton, Bush...)
No, not your point exactly. How do you equate what the article said and what I said as making you point? Most Russians I know are smart and can see reality. What happened to you? I’m not happy about the expanded budget deficit either. However, Democrats ought to be rejoicing and all the pork and social programs our oversized budget is funding. Now, as in looking at Liberal ET posts today, Trump is talking about reducing spending on social programs and the Left is screaming and characterizing the cuts along the lines of being inhumane. It seems to me some people have become used to the hypocrisy of the Left, especially certain ET posters.
Liberals cheer spending when a Liberals is spending. Conservatives point out the budget issues when a Liberal is spending. Conservatives are OK with Conservative Presidents spending. Liberals suddenly become budget hawks. Both sides are hypocrites.