Why we need to stay on the grid: all of these people all need our help.

There is a lot of talk amongst conspiracy circles about getting people off the grid. There is the thought that if we all got off the grid we would be fine and self-reliant communities would magically spring up and everything would be so much better. This is not how the real world works. If we get off the grid without getting these other people who aren't as enlightened as us or haven't been enlightened about how politics really works than we won't be accomplishing much of anything.

People are constantly engaged in non-issues on a false dichotomy. They're engaged in debates about tax-cuts and whether or not the economic stimulus is working or not. The economic stimulus may have helped stopped a depression. But it hasn't made things any better for the common person. I hope to show here in this thread that all the people out there are discussing issues that don't really matter. They're talking about the economy but they're never asking "whose" economy that it really is.

They're not asking the right questions. So they naturally let the discussion about the economy lay in the hands of economists who only look at numbers and don't interpret what the larger meaning of these things are, that corporations that are legally unaccountable to the rest of the people, are able to make it harder for people to live in.

They're also ignoring the question about the federal reserve: that the federal reserve helps corporations do well, but their job is mainly to keep people employed and keep them working for corporations and the elites. All the while people are losing their pensions and they're losing their unionized employer plans. Unions are dying and all these things with outsourcing are happening because the government promoted them and now people are looking for the federal government to help us. It just won't work, and these people need our help.

I first want to quote an article about tax-cuts to help exemplify my point. Tax-cuts will put money in people's pockets. But economists don't believe that people will spend money if they have tax-cuts. That's why they justify economic stimuli. Conservative economists argue in favor of tax cuts because they believe that the government will magically cut spending if we do tax-cuts... but that won't be the case. This brings me to my first non-issue of the day.

NON-ISSUE #1: TAX-CUTS AND SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS VERSUS KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS
.

So while the decision on whether to extend the tax cuts will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, economists and tax experts say it is unlikely to offer much immediate relief for high unemployment and sluggish growth.

“It may have some small impact along the margins, but firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center…

The “nonpartisan” Tax Policy Center, is a partnership between the ultra liberal Brookings Institute and the ultra liberal Urban League. The "nonpartisan" Tax Policy Center has never seen a tax cut that it liked.

When they were signed into law in 2001 and 2003, the huge package of income and capital gains tax reductions that became known as the Bush tax cuts were hailed as a way distribute the government surplus and promote long-term economic growth. Mr. Bush was so confident in their power to generate business growth and revenue that he predicted they would enable the government to pay down $1 trillion in debt in just four years.

Those surpluses have now become crushing deficits because of a combination of factors, including the recession, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the $1.7 trillion in forgone revenue from the tax cuts themselves…

And Hurricane Katrina. And an endless list of spending bills rammed through by a Democrat Congress. And yet the economy was able to withstand all of those things for years – thanks primarily to the Bush tax cuts.

Whatever Congress and the administration ultimately decide about extending the Bush cuts, however, the narrow confines of the debate show how successful antitax groups have been in defining the terms used to discuss tax policy…

Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said the reliance on tax expenditures had distorted the budget process because it induced the public to overlook the fact that — unless they are accompanied by spending reductions — tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as additional spending. It also allows politicians to make unsubstantiated claims about the power of tax-cutting to accomplish other economic goals, he said.

“The thought that tax cuts pay for themselves or that tax cuts alone can turn around this economy is magical thinking,” said Mr. Kleinbard, now a law professor at the University of Southern California. “The debate has become so unrealistic it makes you want to scream.”

sweetness-light.com...

Keynesian economics is another issue that is highly debated. Right now given our empirical evidence within the last 10 years or so it is quite clear that Keynesian economics hasn't been working for us and that it should be discredited. A lot of people who argue that tax-cuts don't help the economy argue for tax-increases and they argue for the government to do deficit spending to help the economy. Of course, we all know that during the last 10 years we've been in trillions and trillions of dollars in debt and that really hasn't helped our economy get any better. Keynesian economics should be considered a dead science. But this was behind the theory of the bailouts and the economic stimulus package. Corporations ended up getting billions and billions of dollars while we just got the scraps from tax-cuts and tax-credits.

What Does Deficit Spending Mean?
When a government's expenditures exceed its revenues, causing or deepening a deficit. This excess spending needs to be financed through borrowing, likely from foreign governments. The increased government spending can help stimulate the economy as more money flows in, but the jump in borrowing can have an adverse effect by raising interest rates.
John Maynard Keynes was an advocate of deficit spending as a fiscal policy tool to help stimulate an economy in recession. During a recession, increased government spending can stimulate business activity, create jobs and spur consumer spending. This creates a multiplier effect in which $1 of government spending helps increase GDP by more than $1. Some complain that the negative effect of deficit spending is that interest rates will increase as the government borrows more. The higher rates make borrowing money more expensive and can stifle growth.

www.investopedia.com...

Most Americans don't want that. They want lower taxes and a smaller deficit (www.msnbc.msn.com...). A lot of these people see these people in Washington and they want to kick out the Democrats out of office. Republicans are telling them what they want to hear.

NON-ISSUE #2: REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF SOLUTIONS. WILL BRING LOWER TAXES AND LOWER DEFICITS.

The problem is that Republicans have been promising a smaller deficit very few Republicans have offered any insight as to what they actually mean by that. Jim Bohner the house minority leader who would probably become the next speaker of the house if the Republicans got a majority wants the Republicans to slash spending to 2008 levels while keeping the current tax-rates the same. So while Republicans are telling them what they want to hear they're not offering any real solutions to what the Democrats have been doing. They're just offering more of the same.

BOEHNER HAS A COUNTER-OFFER ON TAXES.... My biggest concern with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has nothing to do with his ideology or his agenda, though they leave much to be desired. The more meaningful problem is that, when it comes to public policy, Boehner appears to have no idea what he's talking about.

This morning, for example, Boehner spoke to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, and said he's "open" to some of President Obama's tax-cut proposals. But the would-be Speaker preferred to talk about his counter-offer: "Rep. Boehner called for bipartisan cooperation on two new proposals: First, to pass a spending bill now at the 2008 level and second, to extend the current tax rates for two years."

www.washingtonmonthly.com...

NON-ISSUE #3: SKAPEGOAT EVERYONE, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR THE PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRY

Now of course there's the issue of unions. Republicans say that unions are bad and that unions are killing our jobs. They point to the decrease of unionized manufacturing jobs as to why unions have been killing the country when in reality there are just less and less jobs that are unionized and we have been losing our manufacturing sector for quite a long time because greedy corporations that have had the backing of government had outsourced them overseas and because of the fed's mismanagement of the economy. All the while they've been getting "tax-breaks" for it. Democrats or Republicans don't seem to want to admit this. They just would rather blame unions, or illegal immigrants.

Let’s face it, at least in private employment, labor unions are on the way out.

Unions have been going downhill for about fifty years. There was a time when almost 35% of all workers on private payrolls were union members. By 2009 it had fallen to 7.2%.

Unions probably deserve to pass the way of the horse and carriage. They have outlived their usefulness.

But working Americans who are trapped in unions because of decisions that were made by others long before they got their jobs have a real problem.


Union Percent of Workers on Private Payrolls

Unions aren’t just dying, they seem to be killing jobs, too. Take a look at what’s happening in manufacturing.

The number of manufacturing jobs is on the decline. Between 1983 and 2009 manufacturing jobs in America declined by about 5.6 million but most of that loss was in unionized jobs. The number of unionized manufacturing jobs fell from 5.3 million in 1983 to 1.5 million in 2009. That's a 72% loss.

www.unionfreeamerica.com...

Republicans have been blaming illegal immigrants for our job losses while Democrats have been blaming it on China. We can look at two case studies for this: the Republican primary in California and the bills that the Democrats have been passing in congress lately surrounding China. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman raised the issue at the state GOP convention last weekend, saying that tough economic times and a $20 billion budget deficit require the next governor to take a hard stance.

Poizner told The Chronicle this week that illegal immigration would be one of his "top priorities" as governor, insisting he would be tougher on the issue that Whitman.
Poizner's stance

"I supported Prop. 187, and she does not," he said, referring to the 1994 initiative, approved by voters but struck down by a federal court that would have banned illegal immigrants from using public services in California.

He said he opposes taxpayer-supported education and health care benefits to undocumented immigrants and their children because the cash-strapped state can no longer foot those bills.

Whitman's chief strategist, Mike Murphy, said she "is as tough as nails" on illegal immigration, supporting efforts to secure the border and opposing sanctuary cities.

But he said Whitman doesn't support Prop. 187-style efforts to remove kids from state services such as health care and K-12 education, saying "there's a line you cross when it becomes gratuitous, and it's important not to cross that line."

Bringing up the controversial issue less than three months before the June 8 primary election is risky because many Latinos - increasingly important as voters in California - painfully recall the pro-Prop. 187 advertisement that showed grainy images of Mexicans crossing the border with the warning: "They keep coming."
Why this issue now?

But advocates for immigrants questioned the candidates' focus, saying illegal immigration has fallen in California during the economic downturn. In addition, the Obama administration has increased deportations and is cracking down on employers who exploit undocumented workers.

"The Republicans have to figure out: Do they need the taste of red meat more than they need the taste of victory in an election in California?" said Fernand Amandi, vice president of Bendixen and Amandi, a national polling firm that ran the Latino outreach program for Barack Obama's general election campaign and has consulted for Republican candidates.

Moreover, a recent Pew Research study showed illegal immigration ranks at the bottom of the 20 leading issues with voters, who are far more concerned with jobs, the economy, education and health care.

"It's shameful that they are returning to this old rhetoric because even the current Republican governor (Arnold Schwarzenegger) has been clear to state that the economic woes have nothing to do with immigrant workers," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles, which is sending a group of protesters to the march in Washington this weekend.

articles.sfgate.com...

Republicans like Sharron Angle have been using illegal immigration as somewhat of a rallying cry to bring people to their side.

“Every one of her immigration ads have been fact checked by people all over the country,” Reid said Saturday after a rally with Latino voters. “Every fact checker said that they are absolutely lies.”

The Angle campaign says she is being unfairly impugned by all this talk of racism, when she was simply trying to call Reid out on lackadaisical enforcement of the country’s immigration laws.

“Sharron has said several times before that illegal immigration is not about race. It is about the rule of law in this country. It would be a misinterpretation to think that one group of people should be singled out,” Angle campaign spokesman Jarrod Agen said Saturday.

“The issue is that we must stop illegal immigration by security our borders, both northern and southern, and by enforcing our immigration laws,” he said. “Harry Reid does not want to end illegal immigration; he is pro-amnesty.”

www.lasvegassun.com...

People like Senator Schumer on the Democrat's side have been using China as a skapegoat to our problems. They don't want to blame our faulty leadership for letting corporations get out of the US. If corporations don't want to invest in US markets like this article posits here (www.truth-out.org...) it would be because the conditions that our leaders set out for them aren't the best that they could be. But people like senator Schumer don't want to acknowledge that.

Now more than ever, there is a consensus to finally confront China's currency manipulation," the New York Democrat said in a statement.

"It is the single biggest step we can take to promote U.S. job creation, particularly in the manufacturing sector. We plan to move forward with revamped legislation on this issue in the coming days," he said.

Schumer's statement comes as President Barack Obama's administration faces a decision by April 15 on whether to formally label China as a currency manipulator in a semi-annual Treasury Department report.

Many U.S. lawmakers complain that China's currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, giving its companies an unfair price advantage in international trade.

www.reuters.com...

NON-ISSUE #4: HYPER-PARTISANSHIP, TOLERANCE AND THE PROMISE OF EQUALITY TO GAYS AND LESBIANS

I'm not even going to touch the issue of our civil liberties and the kind of apathy people have towards the war in Afghanistan. I'd just like to say one note on how it doesn't help now that DADT has become an issue. It was originally thought that the Democrats were all for repealing DADT. Now Obama has decided to appeal the judge's decision to repeal DADT and the LGBT community is left with nowhere to turn to. The real non-issue in this case is the promise made to the LGBT community and how they screwed them over. Gay rights is a serious issue but gay voters shouldn't feel a need to suck up to the Democrats or Republicans when neither of them wants them around (I'm for gay rights, but I'm just saying that).

Even "moderate" senators like John McCain have started to change their mind about DADT (mediapolitics.info...) to stir up their base. They don't want to be seen as liberal so that's why they're against it.

All this hyper-partisanship combined with the recent citizens united ruling doesn't really help. The masses are constantly distracted by all of these non-issues and they're told to think about illegal immigration and economics while they're not told about the people who are behind the issues. If you talk about the CFR you're a nut from the John Birch society. If you criticize the stimulus you're automatically a libertarian, or a socialist depending on your views. Deficit spending is NOT OKAY no matter what party is in power and no matter what these "mainstream economists" tend to say.

We need to help these people and we can only help them by changing the philosophy within the system. I felt it was necessary to always show examples to back up my points since one of the things that I've learned about in college was to always have examples whenever you say something. I feel that I've proved my case somewhat.

People are constantly distracted by these non-issues and they're overwhelmed by so much information that they don't know how to make sense of all of it so they go to blog sites or they go to the media so they can have other people think for them and tell them what to think about the issues. The masses think that the Republicans will help them and they just want to kick the Democrats out because they think that Republicans have all the answers. Neither party though has the answers or the solutions that we need. This is why I say we should remain on the grid and help other people rather than just going off of it and isolating ourselves from the rest of society.

So now that I've presented this topic, what's your opinion? Do you still want to get off the grid? Would it really be worth it? What about all these other people that need our help?

I believe I understand what you are
saying here but ....

I have a strong suspicion that the ones
leaving the grid afterward will seek out
the ones who have already left. Thereby
staying on the grid only presents more
danger for the awakened. The sleepers
will follow when they have awakened
in due time.

reply to post by boondock-saint


I am aware that most of the people who would want to go off the grid in the first place would be that they want to contact their old friends or acquaintances or other people that they know that have already gotten out of it. I'm aware of this. What I'm saying is that these other people won't become enlightened on their own. The media may try to throw a lot of these non-issues at them and try to tell them what they should be thinking about but that doesn't make them more informed about the world.

It just means that they're good at inside the box thinking rather than outside the box thinking. It's just that I see that we could all be a force for change and rather than just only working outside of the grid and being somewhat of a shadowy movement and rather than letting comedians like Jon Stewart be a voice for sanity that we could be that voice. The reason why Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have so much of a following is because they provide satire for the masses and they make the world seem less ominous than it really is.

We could be that voice of sanity and shed light in all of this darkness that the media casts upon people too. But if we keep insisting on being outside of the mainstream and if we keep insisting on rejecting popular culture altogether rather than utilizing it to our own ends, than, I just don't think we'll make much headway in making the world make more sense to people. This is why people like Stephen Colbert and John Stewart are admired so much and we're looked at as crazy people or conspiracy theorists even though not all of us here are conspiracy theorists in the typical sense.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


its not just getting off the grid.

its creating your own grid. if all of the self sufficient crowd moved off the grid and actually networked, it would be successful.