Dam Bill Clinton Is A Smooth Talker
- Thread starter RyanTheRhino
- Start date
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Hehe DD is on a roll tonight
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i think fox news was more impressed with clinton's and michelle's speeches than i was.
i mean, they were good speeches, but they will only nudge the needle. none of them have been needle movers so far.
the right has set the bar so low for biden (at their own peril) that all he has to do is not choke on a hot dog and talk about flamingo intercourse and he will be considered a success.
huge weight on obama's shoulders tonight. he has to either knock it out of the park, or it will be seen as a failure. my two cents.
i mean, they were good speeches, but they will only nudge the needle. none of them have been needle movers so far.
the right has set the bar so low for biden (at their own peril) that all he has to do is not choke on a hot dog and talk about flamingo intercourse and he will be considered a success.
huge weight on obama's shoulders tonight. he has to either knock it out of the park, or it will be seen as a failure. my two cents.
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
LOL what news station are you watching. I was flipping between Fox News and MSNBC during and after his speech, I didn't hear anything like this.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we just want to know more about the next person who will authorize your government cheese is all.
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
I watch to get an idea on what the mass is being fed.
canndo
Well-Known Member
you missed it then, because these conventions and these speeches aren't what is used to "feed " us. you will never get a glimpse of those people and how they do what they do.
I am reading Wendel Potter's book and the underground manipulations he briefly writes about are chilling.
Be always suspect of "common knowlege" and "common sense" because it is as likely as not to be something dropped into your brain by PR organizations that have been paid hundreds of millions to do so.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
So tell me, Should I be trusting you....I make light of a real issue, I shouldn't.
Subliminal advertising filters, now there's a market! I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it but would like the credit!
canndo
Well-Known Member
The right, being authoritarians, tend to select a leader or source of information on the initial basis of their agreement with that leader or source. Because authoritarians have a great sense of loyalty and because they remain within a group-think mental environment, after their intitial assessment of their leaders and sources, they never apply any critique to those leaders and sources again. You see it, We can bring up the most outrageous lie or distortion that Fox presents and the authoritarians will brush it off or ignore it.
The point is to be constantly critical even of those sources you agree with - tough to do, but the left has an infinitely easier time of it.
We all tend to believe that ideas and beliefs spring up organicly in this country - they don't. There are disinformation campaigns running constantly.
Did you know there was an Insurance company consortium paid "spy" in the first showing of Michael Moore's "Sicko"? He rushed out of the Canne's film show premere and reported to his organization the specifics of the film so that a plan was in place and operational when Sicko was widely released in the States?
One of the methods used to combat the film was the idea that we have "the greatest health care system on earth". That sort of concept had never previously been crystalized in in the general public before. that single line cost insurers tens of millions of dollars to implant in the public mind.
By any reasonable understanding we do not have "the greatest health care system on earth" and by several measures we rank below 50 in the world.
I have seen many of these attempts but never managed to link them to their sources. In this case I have seen the health care PR campaign play out and it is now the sources of many mistruths and misunderstandings but we can look easily at the Tobacco industry which pioneered many of these techiques and those techniques were used by the Golobal Climate Coalition to introduce doubt in the minds of Americans regarding climate change.
Not subliminal filters, simply clever ways to have us think how it is wished we would think.
Krayven Sumhead
Well-Known Member
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't know that, but does not surprise me. If one hears the same thing over and over they will start to believe it.
Much like Clean Coal Commercials, so pristine, butterflies, birds, mom with kids laughing playing.
All the more reason for better education of our country.
Much like Clean Coal Commercials, so pristine, butterflies, birds, mom with kids laughing playing.
All the more reason for better education of our country.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Except - we are not talking about advertising which is "push" only but about PR which is two way, "push pull" and highly invasive.
The author tells a story of the women's sufferage movement. Early PR was used in order to open up a brand new market for .... cigarettes. Women did not smoke in the open, it was not fashionable and frowned upon by everyone.
The PR firm hired a few dozen good looking women, dressed them up in the most modern garb and had them march for "the modern woman's right to vote". Of course all of them sparked up cigarettes - the "torch of freedom".
Cigarettes in the hands of women quickly became a symbol of early liberation. No Advertising, just subversive manipulation.
Krayven Sumhead
Well-Known Member
Yup, phrases like "We have benchmarks on our 'Roadmap To Peace'." Hehehehehehe
"We don't want the smoking gun to become a 'Mushroom Cloud'."
"Brownie, you're doing a heckava job".
"We don't want the smoking gun to become a 'Mushroom Cloud'."
"Brownie, you're doing a heckava job".
Krayven Sumhead
Well-Known Member
Yup, phrases like "We have benchmarks on our 'Roadmap To Peace'." Hehehehehehe
"We don't want the smoking gun to become a 'Mushroom Cloud'."
"Brownie, you're doing a heckava job".
Almost forgot, "Ya see, they hate us for our freedom"
"I'm the de-cider here"
"We don't want the smoking gun to become a 'Mushroom Cloud'."
"Brownie, you're doing a heckava job".
Almost forgot, "Ya see, they hate us for our freedom"
"I'm the de-cider here"
canndo
Well-Known Member
When I was doing networking I wound up getting involved in companies who did polling. I set up focus group rooms and calling booths and predictive dialers. I got a whole new respect not only for the science of polling but the science of focus groups.
It is highly likely that any of Clinton's more pithy bumper sticker statements were composed and tested, modified and tested and tested yet again. Clinton and his speech writers were likely given a list from which to chose of the relevent statements.
I believe that even more so with Romney - after a while you can hear a focus group studied statement - it has a certain ring, as though it was just a bit too polished, a bit too worked on.
In the speeches at the DNC we heard "not from the top down from the middle out and the bottom up" - or a very close variation by my count, 4 different times.
This election cycle will result in the expenditure of a billion dollars or more - plenty of this is being spent on high level pr. And with the stakes this high, everything is studied.
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Quote circulating on Facebook with may or may not be accurate.
Attachments
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
The Bill Clinton Myth
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2012 09:37 -0400
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
The Bill Clinton Myth
Earlier this week, former U.S. president Bill Clinton gave the keynote address to the Democractic National Convention in an effort to lend some of his popularity to Barack Obama. With the unemployment rate still stubbornly high at 8.1%, Obama has lost many of the enthused voters who put him into the Oval Office in 2008. Clinton was tapped to deliver the speech not only because of his image of a wonkish pragmatist but because of his presiding over the booming economy of the late 1990s. Like a prized mule, Clinton was dragged out to give Democrats someone to point to and say that his policies were the hallmark of smart governance.
What attracts the left, both politicians and media, to Slick Willy is the fact that he presided over a thriving economy even while raising taxes. This coincidence was championed as a justification for higher tax rates by Obama in his own speech before the DNC.
I want to reform the tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 – the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a lot of millionaires to boot.
The Clinton-era tax hikes, it is alleged, provided the federal government the means to create a healthy middle class. Or at least that’s the only casual connection that can be gathered from such a philosophy. The left claims that economic growth is driven primarily by middle class spending. This spending needs to be subsidized in turn by government initiatives. As Nobel Prize winning economist and class warrior Joseph Stiglitz puts it:
Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education, and technology, impeding the engines of growth.
Stiglitz’s thinking rests on the Keynesian theory that economies are reliant on strong levels of consumption and demand. And with the right people in office, the state is the most capable institution of spending a nation into prosperity.
However this is a misunderstanding of the difference between spending by private individuals and political spending. Government is incapable of being run like a business. Enterprise is based off the principle of satisfying voluntary patrons with no guarantee of success. Even in a hampered market economy where corporations receive special privileges via the state, the consumer remains the kingmaker. On the other hand, government receives all income through coercive measures. Profit and loss accounting is of little concern when losses are borne by the taxpayer and profits are immediately devoted to political projects. Should the public Treasury run low, tax collectors can be sent forth to shakedown the unpresuming citizens.
When it comes to rational economic calculation, public officials need not worry about spending money effectively. To attribute increased revenue being taxed away from the private economy with robust growth misconstrues how wealth is created. Government doesn’t create wealth; it merely transfers it between parties. Similarly, it only consumes capital that has already been produced. Because society existed before the state and because the state functions off of what it pilfers from society, public expenditures do not add to net wealth. In order for one tax dollar to be spent, it has to be first taken from the pocket of a taxpayer. Whatever subjective desires could have been achieved by that dollar become overridden to satisfy the whims of the political class.
As journalist of the old right Garet Garrett wrote in his vital essay “The Revolution Was”
If you raise agricultural prices to increase the farmer’s income the wage earner has to pay more for food. If you raise wages to increase the wage earner’s income the farmer has to pay more for everything he buys. And if you raise farm prices and wages both it is again as it was before. Nevertheless, to win the adherence which is indispensable you have to promise to increase the income of the farmer without hurting the wage earner and to increase the wage earner’s income without hurting the farmer. The only solution so far has been one of acrobatics.
The money distributed by politicians and bureaucrats is forever stained with previous sin. The fact that the economy didn’t stagnate under higher taxes during Clinton’s term in office doesn’t demonstrate that taxation has no harmful effects. Economies aren’t closed experiments where one variable can be introduced and the effects observed. There are far too many factors at play. Concrete theories based off certain truths must be applied in such a way to interpret date and wring sense out of it. Good economic conditions weren’t a result of heightened taxes but instead prevailed in spite of them. While the productivity gains from the newly widespread use of personal computers and the internet had a positive effect on growth, another factor often goes unmentioned. The later-half of the 1990s may be looked back upon as golden years but much of the gains experienced by the stock market were not representative of organic growth. A significant amount of investment came not from natural causes but from monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve. See the following chart for the year-over-year percentage of growth of the M2 money supply.
As Pace University professor of economics Joseph Salerno writes:
In 1992 and 1993, the Fed gunned the money supply increasing it at double-digit annual rates in an attempt to propel the economy into a more expeditious recovery. In 1994, the Fed reversed course and held the monetary growth rate at low levels through 1995. In 1996 it did another about-face and substantially increased the pace of monetary inflation through 1999. Just as the Austrian business cycle theory predicted, real private investment soared from a low of 12 percent of GDP in 1991 to an unprecedented high of 20 percent of GDP by mid-2000 with a pause in the tight money years 1994-1995.
…like the stock bubble, the investment bubble was driven by monetary inflation and doomed to collapse whenever Greenspan decided that the economic data were signaling impending price inflation and slammed on the monetary brake. This occurred last year (2000) when consumer price inflation shot up to nearly 4 percent per year and jolted Greenspan and the FOMC into raising short-term interest rates. Indeed the money supply actually shrunk by $20 billion and its annual rate of growth (year over year) plummeted from an average of 6.23 percent for the period1996-1999 to -1.24 percent in 2000.
This monetary tightening devastated the New Economy and the NASDAQ tanked, falling by over 50 percent from its high in March 2000. But, even more importantly, it also brought the investment boom in the real sector of the economy to a screeching halt.
Like the decade that preceded the Great Depression, productivity gains which drove consumer prices downward masked the amount of monetary stimulus being pumped into the economy. When the bubble collapsed, Greenspan once again turned to the printing press to bail himself out. Instead of causing a bubble in the tech sector, the burst of inflation made its way into the housing sector. By the time the housing bubble popped, Greenspan left the chairmanship of the Fed to great acclaim. Milton Friedman writing in the Wall Street Journal declared Greenspan had “set the standard” for Fed chairmen in maintaining stable prices and growth. In actuality, he and his colleagues of the Federal Open Market Committee were responsible for the continuation of the boom-bust cycle and current Great Recession.
Today, Clinton still takes credit for Greenspan’s manipulated boom. His supporters on the left love nothing more than to point at his presidency as vindication of the backwards theory that higher taxes equal more growth. Clinton wasn’t a policy wonk; he was a politician who dipped into the Social Security trust fund to give an appearance of balancing the budget while the national debt still climbed higher.
Through all of his financial scandals, womanizing, aggressive foreign policy approaches, and possible cover ups, it is actually fitting that Clinton is still looked to by the political establishment as someone worthy of respect. He is representative of F.A. Hayek’s timeless lesson: in government the worst rise to the top and state power corrupts.
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2012 09:37 -0400
- Barack Obama
- Consumer Prices
- Federal Reserve
- Great Depression
- Gross Domestic Product
- Guest Post
- Housing Bubble
- Joseph Stiglitz
- Ludwig von Mises
- M2
- Milton Friedman
- Money Supply
- NASDAQ
- National Debt
- new economy
- Recession
- recovery
- Social Security Trust Fund
- Unemployment
- Wall Street Journal
Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
The Bill Clinton Myth
Earlier this week, former U.S. president Bill Clinton gave the keynote address to the Democractic National Convention in an effort to lend some of his popularity to Barack Obama. With the unemployment rate still stubbornly high at 8.1%, Obama has lost many of the enthused voters who put him into the Oval Office in 2008. Clinton was tapped to deliver the speech not only because of his image of a wonkish pragmatist but because of his presiding over the booming economy of the late 1990s. Like a prized mule, Clinton was dragged out to give Democrats someone to point to and say that his policies were the hallmark of smart governance.What attracts the left, both politicians and media, to Slick Willy is the fact that he presided over a thriving economy even while raising taxes. This coincidence was championed as a justification for higher tax rates by Obama in his own speech before the DNC.
I want to reform the tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 – the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a lot of millionaires to boot.
The Clinton-era tax hikes, it is alleged, provided the federal government the means to create a healthy middle class. Or at least that’s the only casual connection that can be gathered from such a philosophy. The left claims that economic growth is driven primarily by middle class spending. This spending needs to be subsidized in turn by government initiatives. As Nobel Prize winning economist and class warrior Joseph Stiglitz puts it:
Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education, and technology, impeding the engines of growth.
Stiglitz’s thinking rests on the Keynesian theory that economies are reliant on strong levels of consumption and demand. And with the right people in office, the state is the most capable institution of spending a nation into prosperity.
However this is a misunderstanding of the difference between spending by private individuals and political spending. Government is incapable of being run like a business. Enterprise is based off the principle of satisfying voluntary patrons with no guarantee of success. Even in a hampered market economy where corporations receive special privileges via the state, the consumer remains the kingmaker. On the other hand, government receives all income through coercive measures. Profit and loss accounting is of little concern when losses are borne by the taxpayer and profits are immediately devoted to political projects. Should the public Treasury run low, tax collectors can be sent forth to shakedown the unpresuming citizens.
When it comes to rational economic calculation, public officials need not worry about spending money effectively. To attribute increased revenue being taxed away from the private economy with robust growth misconstrues how wealth is created. Government doesn’t create wealth; it merely transfers it between parties. Similarly, it only consumes capital that has already been produced. Because society existed before the state and because the state functions off of what it pilfers from society, public expenditures do not add to net wealth. In order for one tax dollar to be spent, it has to be first taken from the pocket of a taxpayer. Whatever subjective desires could have been achieved by that dollar become overridden to satisfy the whims of the political class.
As journalist of the old right Garet Garrett wrote in his vital essay “The Revolution Was”
If you raise agricultural prices to increase the farmer’s income the wage earner has to pay more for food. If you raise wages to increase the wage earner’s income the farmer has to pay more for everything he buys. And if you raise farm prices and wages both it is again as it was before. Nevertheless, to win the adherence which is indispensable you have to promise to increase the income of the farmer without hurting the wage earner and to increase the wage earner’s income without hurting the farmer. The only solution so far has been one of acrobatics.
The money distributed by politicians and bureaucrats is forever stained with previous sin. The fact that the economy didn’t stagnate under higher taxes during Clinton’s term in office doesn’t demonstrate that taxation has no harmful effects. Economies aren’t closed experiments where one variable can be introduced and the effects observed. There are far too many factors at play. Concrete theories based off certain truths must be applied in such a way to interpret date and wring sense out of it. Good economic conditions weren’t a result of heightened taxes but instead prevailed in spite of them. While the productivity gains from the newly widespread use of personal computers and the internet had a positive effect on growth, another factor often goes unmentioned. The later-half of the 1990s may be looked back upon as golden years but much of the gains experienced by the stock market were not representative of organic growth. A significant amount of investment came not from natural causes but from monetary manipulation by the Federal Reserve. See the following chart for the year-over-year percentage of growth of the M2 money supply.
As Pace University professor of economics Joseph Salerno writes:
In 1992 and 1993, the Fed gunned the money supply increasing it at double-digit annual rates in an attempt to propel the economy into a more expeditious recovery. In 1994, the Fed reversed course and held the monetary growth rate at low levels through 1995. In 1996 it did another about-face and substantially increased the pace of monetary inflation through 1999. Just as the Austrian business cycle theory predicted, real private investment soared from a low of 12 percent of GDP in 1991 to an unprecedented high of 20 percent of GDP by mid-2000 with a pause in the tight money years 1994-1995.
…like the stock bubble, the investment bubble was driven by monetary inflation and doomed to collapse whenever Greenspan decided that the economic data were signaling impending price inflation and slammed on the monetary brake. This occurred last year (2000) when consumer price inflation shot up to nearly 4 percent per year and jolted Greenspan and the FOMC into raising short-term interest rates. Indeed the money supply actually shrunk by $20 billion and its annual rate of growth (year over year) plummeted from an average of 6.23 percent for the period1996-1999 to -1.24 percent in 2000.
This monetary tightening devastated the New Economy and the NASDAQ tanked, falling by over 50 percent from its high in March 2000. But, even more importantly, it also brought the investment boom in the real sector of the economy to a screeching halt.
Like the decade that preceded the Great Depression, productivity gains which drove consumer prices downward masked the amount of monetary stimulus being pumped into the economy. When the bubble collapsed, Greenspan once again turned to the printing press to bail himself out. Instead of causing a bubble in the tech sector, the burst of inflation made its way into the housing sector. By the time the housing bubble popped, Greenspan left the chairmanship of the Fed to great acclaim. Milton Friedman writing in the Wall Street Journal declared Greenspan had “set the standard” for Fed chairmen in maintaining stable prices and growth. In actuality, he and his colleagues of the Federal Open Market Committee were responsible for the continuation of the boom-bust cycle and current Great Recession.
Today, Clinton still takes credit for Greenspan’s manipulated boom. His supporters on the left love nothing more than to point at his presidency as vindication of the backwards theory that higher taxes equal more growth. Clinton wasn’t a policy wonk; he was a politician who dipped into the Social Security trust fund to give an appearance of balancing the budget while the national debt still climbed higher.
Through all of his financial scandals, womanizing, aggressive foreign policy approaches, and possible cover ups, it is actually fitting that Clinton is still looked to by the political establishment as someone worthy of respect. He is representative of F.A. Hayek’s timeless lesson: in government the worst rise to the top and state power corrupts.