Socialism versus communism - what's the difference and how does this all compare to the Trump economy?

Having trouble defining the difference between socialism and communism?  Maybe it's because there is no practical difference. 

Under Trump,  taxes went down for most sectors of the American  including Big Business, small business and single owner/private business,  and a $1,000 cut in taxes per the 78 million  child. 

In terms of dollar and cents,  we have 33 million two parent families,  11 million single parent families,  all receiving a total of $78 billion dollars in tax savings (that is what a $1000 tax credit per child looks like in the Trump economy).

Note:  If you do not have children living at home,  quite frankly,  you did not get much of a  tax cuts, but,  for the 77 million American parents,  your tax break was between one and two thousand dollars per parent. 

My point?  Kiss all of this "good-bye" if a Democrat is elected as president.  And I say this because none of the six clowns on the debate stage in Vegas are promising a continuation of the tax break to the nation's working-class families with the possible exception of Bloomberg  (and he has not revealed his tax plans for the Blue Collar working class).   

Now you know.

Part of the ACCEPTED Democrat constituency. What do you think. Vote accordinginly. (see the video)

Go to 33 minutes on the video and listen to two or three minutes of this speech.  Understand that this man gives our country no serious credit whatsoever   . . . . . .   and this is part of the Establishment Rhetoric of the Obama Left,  without debate.  Don't agree?  Find party leadership who will stand up and condemn this kind of garbage.  Me?  I am tired of this kind of crap and am not going to take it anymore   . . . .   just doing what this trouble-maker tells me to do.  We have a wonderful country and we all need to join hands and hearts and fix the problems we have. 

Why of course these people are normal. Why would you think not?

I intend to make the Democrat own their constituencies.  Some are wholesome,  others are perverted,  violent,  communist,  or just plain stupid.  I intend to post such on a daily basis  (there is plenty of material to choose from) and to do so with as little commentary as possible.  This post is an example. There is nothing in its wording that is expressly insulting to the woman (?) in the picture.  You will draw your own conclusion. 

The Al Sharpton Wing of the Democrat Party preaching hate and death to the White Man . . . . all white people. (video of Tuesday's rally).

You should know that these folks are part of the Democrat constituency.

 Question:  will anyone in the New Progressive Democrat Party condemn such talk and name the criminally minded who are preaching this kind of hatred?  Well,  it happened yesterday   . . . . . . . .   so far   . . . . . . . . . .     nothing.  

Chuck Todd, a great replacement on Meet The Press, sees Obama as doing Carter like damage to the Democrat Brand. I told you so back in 2009. (see the video). The polling results cited are shocking.

I should qualify my comment on Todd (in the headline, above).  

Understand that we have had a "states right versus big government" debate from the very beginning of this nations history,  and I mean from "day #1."  The current crop of extremist Progressives are neither part of that history or patriotic to our nation's traditional/political values.  By every possible consideration,  they are the enemy within.   They honor philosophies opposed to our founding documents and historic/ongoing debate  (Marx,  for example) and would turn this country into a dictatorship ship supported by one party rule,  if they could.  We know this because they have made public statements to that effect.  These people are already committed to the destruction of private property rights (the single most important freedom we have),  a rewrite of freedom of speech rights,  forced labor laws (socialist/Marxist inspired),  and alliances with nations that work,  openly,  for the defeat of our once great nation.  

Chuck Todd is not a part of that coalition.  He and other Big Government Progressives,  are just now becoming aware of how much damage the radicalized Progressive Movement  (openly inspired by a Marxist Utopian philosophy that neither works or is compatible with our societal commerce) has done and is doing,  to the Democrat brand,  as a traditional alternative to more conservative influences.   

Democrats believe that voting in GOP primaries is a great strategy. Larry Sabato disagrees and here is why:

27 share

Understand,  I am posting this article in toto,  because it came to me via my digital mail box.  Sabato wants this republished.  and I am happy to oblige.  The headline is our question;  the article is our answer.  

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball PICKING YOUR PRIMARY POISON As Herbert Hoover discovered, meddling in primaries can backfire By Sean Trende Senior Columnist, Sabato's Crystal Ball

Analysts are noticing the Democrats’ efforts to meddle in Republican primaries. In a Wall Street Journal article from last month, Janet Hook writes “Democrats increasingly are running ads against GOP candidates even before they win their party’s nomination. By attacking GOP candidates while they are still embroiled in a primary election campaign, some Democrats have seen an opportunity to promote the GOP candidate they think is easiest to beat, or to weaken the one they consider strongest.” Hook points to attempts by Democrats to swing the Republican nomination in North Carolina to candidates other than Thom Tillis, whom many viewed as the most electable Republican. Although Democrats failed to produce a potentially weaker Republican nominee in the Tar Heel State (Tillis won the GOP nomination), they have been more successful in other races. Our Latest 2014 Senate Ratings Our Latest 2014 Governor Ratings Our Latest 2014 House Ratings Our Latest Rating Changes Perhaps most famously, Democrats devoted resources toward enhancing Rep. Todd Akin’s chances of winning the Republican nomination in the 2012 Republican Senate primary in Missouri. Shortly after winning the nomination, Akin made his infamous comments suggesting that a woman who was “legitimate[ly]” raped could not become impregnated, mostly guaranteeing that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) would win reelection. In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) likewise helped to ensure that his opponent in the fall would be state Sen. Sharron Angle (R), rather than the (presumably) more formidable Sue Lowden (R). In truth, this is not a new technique. We could draw on many examples across time, but I thought that this would be a good time to tell a particular story, which is the earliest example of a politician attempting to interfere in an opposing party’s nomination contest of which I’m aware. To be clear up front, this story is not the result of my own research. What follows is largely drawn from a 1994 article by William G. Thiemann in Presidential Studies Quarterly. It is told in my own words and has my own interpretations, but the credit for unearthing this goes to Thiemann. The article is titled “President Hoover’s Efforts on Behalf of FDR’s 1932 Nomination.” In what might be one of the most colossal miscalculations in presidential history, Hoover attempted to swing the 1932 presidential nomination to Franklin Roosevelt, believing him to be the easiest Democrat to defeat. Hoover and Roosevelt had long been seen as rising political stars. In Hoover’s case, he was seen as a star by both parties. At the time, the parties had geographic and demographic bases, rather than firm ideological bases. Both parties sported what we would today refer to as liberal wings. Hoover had bolted the Republican Party in 1912 to support Teddy Roosevelt’s third-party bid for the presidency, and in 1920, many Democrats believed that a ticket consisting of Herbert Hoover and then-Assistant Naval Secretary Franklin Roosevelt could potentially keep the presidency in Democratic hands. Hoover’s name was actually entered into the 1920 Democratic primary in New Hampshire, where he came in second behind unpledged delegates. Hoover then reaffirmed his Republican leanings (and actually entered his name in the 1920 California primary on the Republican side) while FDR became Democratic nominee James Cox’s running mate (they lost, badly). By 1932, the relationship between Hoover and Roosevelt became increasingly acrimonious. Hoover believed that Roosevelt was a dilettante who would be exposed as a weak candidate over the course of a lengthy campaign and who would never be elected president. So Hoover made a number of moves to shore up Roosevelt. Part of what made Roosevelt so palatable to Democrats was that he was a northerner who had spent much of his time in Georgia; indeed, much of his initial support came from southern delegates (Eleanor’s family had southern roots as well). A group of Klansmen came to Washington to demand payment from the Democratic National Committee for services they had provided to Roosevelt (FDR notoriously played the race issue both ways, frequently disparaging Reconstruction before Southern audiences). When the DNC refused to pay, the Klansmen sought to deal with Hoover, who turned them away. While Hoover might have created bad publicity for FDR, and perhaps even split the Democratic convention as it had been split in the 1924 election, Thiemann notes that Hoover reasoned in part “we want [Roosevelt] for a candidate.” After some breaks against FDR in late primaries, including John Nance Garner’s win in the California primary, Hoover became increasingly active. After learning that General Motors executive John Jakob Raskob, 1928 Democratic nominee Al Smith and financier Bernard Baruch were planning to support businessman and diplomat Owen Young, Hoover leaked the information to the press in a (successful) effort to give anti-Young forces an opportunity to coalesce. As the Democratic convention drew near, Hoover became increasingly convinced that attorney and former Secretary of War Newton Baker would be the Democratic nominee, especially after New Jersey political boss Frank Hague publicly denounced Roosevelt as the weakest candidate. This seemed confirmed when, by the third ballot, FDR’s support had barely increased, from 666.25 delegates to 682.79. There was an increased sense that the Democratic convention was deadlocked, which would mean that the delegates would begin to search for other candidates who would be broadly acceptable. Hoover did not want this. So he dispatched film executive Louis B. Mayer to speak with the increasingly isolationist Democratic newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, to warn him that support suggested that a wave was building for the staunchly internationalist Baker and urging him to back Roosevelt. Mayer believed his efforts made the difference, and communicated to the White House that “Hearst would cut loose in the morning.” Indeed, the next morning Hearst’s newspaper published a scathing editorial denouncing Baker. Hearst then negotiated with Garner and William Gibbs McAdoo to move the Texas and California delegations to Roosevelt. This created a stampede at the convention, and Roosevelt captured the two thirds of delegates then needed to become the party’s standard-bearer. Had this not happened, there really is a good chance that Baker would have been the nominee; Roosevelt’s speechwriter would later recall that “I don’t think there was any doubt about it because there was no other person in sight.” After receiving the news, Hoover’s press secretary Theodore Joslin recalled that “the President smiled more broadly than he had in months.” Without access to counterfactual information, we cannot determine whether Franklin Roosevelt was, in fact, easier or more difficult to defeat than the other Democratic contenders. But I do think there are a few broad lessons here. First, note the candidates that terrified Hoover: Baker and Young. These men most resembled Herbert Hoover: technocrats for whom politics was not an avocation. Part of Hoover’s problem was that, like many successful men and women, he tended to associate success with people who were like him, and had a difficult time seeing what others had to offer. Hoover just could not see how the public could embrace a hopelessly optimistic man who spoke in generalities over an accomplished technocrat such as himself. But more importantly, Hoover was so obsessed with his own reelection and his contempt for Roosevelt that he failed to see the forest for the trees. Twice (that we know of) he made moves that helped avert a deadlocked Democratic convention. So certain was Hoover that the country would never elect FDR that he made moves that kept the Democratic Party from splintering (which could have helped Hoover win). In addition, Hoover should have seen that he was likely to lose no matter what, given the state of the economy. Under those circumstances, he probably should have attempted to find the Democrat who was most like him. Had a fellow technocrat with a business background like Baker or Young been the nominee, we might not have seen the radical departures that we saw during the New Deal. To the extent that Hoover’s interventions helped Roosevelt to become the Democratic nominee, they helped to transform that party into an ideological, progressive institution, which advanced many programs that Hoover would later find appalling. This latter point is important today. We grin and look at Reid for helping choose Sharron Angle as his opponent, and think “clever man.” But was it inevitable Reid would win against Angle? Polls showed a close race all along, and Reid could have saddled the Senate with a member who was unlikely to compromise on much of anything, rather than a more pliable senator like Lowden. This seems particularly important as the Thad Cochran-Chris McDaniel Republican Senate runoff in Mississippi approaches; many Democrats are cheering on McDaniel, but perhaps they should be careful what they wish for. Perhaps the most important lesson from this is merely one of historical significance. We tend to see history and elections as constituting an unbending, inevitable arc toward what we now label modernity. In truth, there is nothing inevitable about it, and behind every monumental accomplishment lie thousands of contingencies that could have been decided either way. The greatest president of the 20th Century was very nearly not the Democratic nominee. That fact alone counsels a great degree of humility when scouring the historical record in an attempt to make predictions about the future

The Democrat lie and the truth about the world of the Progressive Big Bank/Big Corporation world.

The Weekly Standard.com carries this story:  Acting Labor Secretary Seth D. Harris addressed the Annual Legislative Conference of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) on Monday. As part of a scathing attack on attempts to reform public employee labor unions, Harris told a joke that he said was “making the rounds a few years ago”:

 A unionized public employee, a small-government conservative, and a CEO are sitting around a table with a plate that has a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the conservative and says: "Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

Now,  here is the problem.  The Democrat party is the party of Big Banking and the large corporate CEO.  Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary,  it is the Obama Administration who over-saw the largest transfer of wealth in world history, somewhere between 7 and 24 trillion dollars via TARP,  into banking coffers.  While Obama touts the success of TARP and his willingness to have acted “immediately,”  the fact remains that Wall Street dropped another 4,000 points after TARP.  TARP prevented nothing.  Its original purpose was derailed from the very beginning,  and Big Banking was the only benefactor;  retirement funds were permanently lost and the small investor never recovered her investments.  Instead,  Big Banking has recorded record profits and "too big to fail" has simply gotten bigger,  under the green king,  Obama,  and his BS leadership  ("BS" of course,  standing for Bio Sensitive).  

It is a well known fact that the larger corporations in America  are run by Progressives.  It is small business that has a majority conservative vote,  not Big Business.  And Seth Harris knows this to be the fact,  but he continues the lie at the expense of the truth,  knowing full well that the Compliant Media will not call him on his distortions. 

Understand that Obama and the Socialist Democrats spent 3 billion,  total,  on the past election,  while the Romney campaign and the conservative collective spend 2 billion. Unions gave nearly 700 million,  George Soros and related concerns including the large business CEO community,  gave another 1.4 billion;  smaller donations made up the remainder.   Certainly “big money” exists on the GOP side,  but the point of this post,  is this:  Obama and his Socialist Combine owns the world of the Big Bank and Big Business,  period.  

The party that invented the KKK now branding the GOP with that history. It happened in the 2012 election.

A presidential election flier disseminated in North Carolina and marked with a seal for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) featured Ku Klux Klan and lynching imagery as part of its presentation urging voters to head to the polls.
Another pro-Obama flier in North Carolina informed African-American voters that Mitt Romney would relegate them to “picking cotton” if elected president.
The fliers, photographs of which were obtained by The Daily Caller, were found in the Charlotte, North Carolina area on Election Day 2012.
One flier, headlined “Souls to the Polls,” depicts members of the Ku Klux Klan wielding torches and black-and-white illustrations of African-American lynchings. The flier is marked, in its upper left-hand corner, with a seal for the NAACP. . . . .  read the full article at the Daily Caller.

See what you think. Ed Rendell is a liberal Democrat but is he "one of them?" I don't think so.

<<<<  If a liberal can be one of the good guys  (after all,  we have always had "liberals"),  Ed Rendell is one of them. 

In an interview on MSNBC,  Rendell had this to say.  See what you think.  

RENDELL: The people want us to get together and do something. That's why I was sad to see Steve not run for re-election because we need Republicans, we need more Republicans who are going to stand in there and say, spending is the issue, but we gotta have reasonable revenue to come in into the mix and we got to look at everything when it comes to spending. Defense cannot be a sacred cow, we've got to look at everything and we've got to have legitimate entitlement reform.

And on our side Mike, we've gotta do this. I was on The Cycle, one of MSNBC's shows and I suggested that raising the age in Medicare, given the fact that we're living longer, isn't a necessarily bad idea. The three progressive hosts, you would have thought that I'd proposed treason to the American government.

And he has to also deliver a message to Democrats that we're going to have to compromise. Now give the President credit, he said he would consider chained CPI, he said back in 2011 that he would raise the age limit on Medicare with carve-outs. Those are things he's going to have to deliver if we're going to get Republicans to go along with more increased revenue and doing something finally on the debt. But only one person can take this on his shoulders and cross the finish line and that's the President of the United States. He has to lead. 

Point of post:  there are those in the Democrat Party who see the need for compromise and working together.   I am just hoping that Governor Rendell is not the only one who remains in that Party.  

_________________

After notes:

Add Ed Koch to Rendell's name. (Ed Koch: Obama reneging on support for Israel..) 

This one minute plus, video of JFK, is why I was once a Democrat.

"They" keep saying,  "Reagan could not survive in the GOP of today."  Laying aside the fact that those preaching such nonsense hated  -  absolutely hated - Ronald Reagan,  we remind them that John F. Kennedy would have been very much at home in the GOP of 2012.  This short video is a reminder of what John Kennedy cared about.  B Obama would never call out the communist of today,  in the  terms used by JFK.  Obama would never say,  "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask, 'what can I do for my country.' "  And why?  Because this is  all crap to our first Rogue President.  

In 1963,  President Kennedy was murdered by members of the mafia,  the same mafia used by the CIA in its clandestined war against despots in foreign countries.  Before his death,  he and his Attorney General,  Robert Kennedy,  had singled out a dozen crime "families,"  and intended on putting them out of business.  In 1961,  Robert ordered the kidnapping of a mafia crime boss named Marcello,  "arrested" as he entered a restaurant,  placed in a small plane and flown to Central America,  where he was taken in the Guatemala jungles and left to die.  Instead of dying,  Marcello survived and was the only individual I know,  who openly talked about killing Kennedy.  

Before he was murdered,  President Kennedy established the peace corps  (pronounced "core" for all you Obamanites, out there),  cut the income tax rate from 90% to 70%,  and decided to bring home the 1,000 advisors in Viet Nam.  That last order was reversed by LBJ as his first declaration (an executive order, btw)  following the death of his president.  Viet Nam was a Democrat war used by reprobate,  Richard Nixon,  used for political purposes.   Clearly,  JFK was no modern day Democrat.  The Democrat Party has never been the same.  

____________________
End notes:
Here is a blog I found in my recent surfing expedition:   Voting Female.


JFK was killed on November 22, 1963,  the same day CS Lewis passed into the next life.

Clinton Democrats definitely unhappy with the Obama Radicals.

First the story: 

Booker's big mouth ruins relationship with Obama, Cabinet hopes

By JOSH MARGOLIN

Last Updated: 6:25 AM, June 8, 2012

It’s bye-bye, Beltway for Cory Booker.

Newark’s mayor, who was gunning for a spot in President Obama’s Cabinet, lost the chance after he shot his mouth off during a blunderingly honest TV appearance last month, sources told The Post.

“He’s dead to us,” one ranking administration official said of the prevailing feelings at the White House and Obama headquarters in Chicago. . . . . . .

Thinking highly of Booker, Obama’s campaign asked him to appear on “Meet the Press” on May 20 to act as a mouthpiece, but he proceeded to eviscerate one of the president’s key campaign themes.

Booker told a national TV audience the president’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at private-equity firm Bain Capital were “nauseating” and made him “very uncomfortable.”

Now,  a Clinton Liberal’s response and the rest of the story: 

Lanny Davis Goes Off On Obama Aides: “YouHave Vicious People Who Are Working For The President”

Former Clinton aide takes Obama officials to task for saying Cory Booker is “dead to us.” “It may be meltdown unless they come to their senses. Why would they want to create enemies, or depict people as enemies: who are their friends?”posted Jun 8, 2012 5:23pm EDT

Notes about the civil war going on within the Democrat Party.

Editor's notes: A supporter of the Marxist/Socialist, Hillary Clinton, has written an article detailing the "civil war" within the Socialist Democrat Party. You can read the story at the Huffington Post, a Marxist rag that celebrates the death of traditional America. What is not widely reported is this particular story -- the division that exists within this socialist party.

Hispanic leadership: American Hispanics have expressed great disappointment in Mr. Obama, pointing to his promise to pass immigration last year when he had a 60 member majority in the Senate to compliment the super majority in the House. Obama's polling numbers within the Hispanic community have grown to become quite "normal," losing 40% his election numbers within this particular demographic. Many of them will not "come back."

The anti-war crowd: He left the impression, during the campaign, that he was going to pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan IN TOTAL by the end of 2011. It is now evident that 50 to 60 thousand troops will remain in Iraq for years to come - as they should. And, the Afghanistan War will continue for another two, three or more years - what with the appointment of General Patraeus.

It is now more than obvious that Obama will not close GITMO. He continues to use the hated but revised Patriot Act and the process of rendition. And, the reconstitution of "General Betray Us" by one of the good general's biggest critics (Obama) is almost beyond belief for these liberal day-dreamers.

The environmentalist: The environmental community is especially angry with Obama's failure in the Gulf. His refusal to treat the crisis with any sense of immediacy may have condemned the Gulf economy (287 billion dollars per year) to years of recovery and financial distress for years to come --- not to mention the environmental disaster that is yet to manifest itself. No one knows just how much harm will come to the shrimp in the Gulf, the clam beds and aquatic life in general and the marshlands of the Gulf Coast.

Obama no longer has any hope of coming up with an energy policy. Understand that an energy bill here and a comprehensive energy speech there do not make an energy policy.

Public Option socialist supporters: Few on the Right understand just how disappointed the ultra-liberal is over the fact that the "public option" was not in the bill. Of course, given enough time, many of the goals of a "public option" will come to fruition. Therein is the rub, "given enough time." Healthcare reform is now the law of the land but the law is far from being fully written. Parts of the bill will be revised, some of the bill will be repealed and all of the bill will have -- in time -- the distinct mark of a conservative, pro free-market influence.

Midknight Review continues to remind its readership that Obama spent a recorded 3/4 of a billion dollars winning an election by just 6.5 % of the popular vote. We believe that he has lost all of that "majority" in addition to an additional 6 or 7 million votes. Today, according to Rasmussen, Obama's remains at a 45% mark with regard to his approval rating and only 32% of Independents support the man. --- jds
.