TINA! = wicked lie = democracy raped

.. There Is No Alternative ...

  .. means surrender to greed ...

    .. violating the 'democratic covenant'

Thesis: The root-problem is corruption[1], driven by greed and enabled by irresponsibility.

Preamble: The basic 'democratic covenant' is that we the sheople surrender power to those who would rule us, on the understanding that those rulers will protect our, we the sheople's best interests. It is not working; to the contrary, our so-called 'democratic' rulers have 'allowed,' when not actively connived in introducing, an economic system definitely *not* in our, we the sheople's best interests. We have been lied to; these lies[2] being deployed to deceive[3], in turn for villains to take wicked[4] advantage and in addition, a deceived = misinformed electorate, apart from a) possibly (actually, definitely) being ripped-off, b) cannot possibly 'vote straight,' this in turn means that any representative elected via deploying lies has *zero* mandate. As a by-product, any/all laws made by such deceptive rulers are invalid.

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Hewson takes swipe at parties over climate
Posted June 6, 2011 00:05:00
  «Dr Hewson said vested interests were buying influence in Canberra and leadership was needed to take them on.
"We [also] need leadership to challenge the scare campaign that's been led by one of my ex-staff members," he said, referring to Mr Abbott.» 
[AusBC/'news']

Comment: Any idiot can promise to cut taxes, or screech "No new taxes!" - as Abbott repeatedly demonstrates. It's often called 'populism,' and is denigrated by saying that those out of power can say such things because they don't actually have to implement their 'promises' = irresponsibility. Tax-cuts are easy, but reducing *required* services is not quite so easy - proof is what we see; less socialised medicine = sicker (lower-income) people, for example. But it gets worse.

-=*=-

Thatcher's cry of "TINA!" was early-on in the march of neo-liberalism which, accompanied by globalisation, has somewhat of a by-product of ruthless, tending to exhaustive exploitation, brought our world to the brink of total disaster = the approaching excess-CO2 caused climate-change catastrophe. That our rulers have so far taken *no* effective steps to avoid having our once jewel-like, comfortable-life sustaining ecosphere being crippled by climate-change is the proof of their ultimate irresponsibility. Even if Gillard/Lab gets a CO2-tax up, it will almost certainly be too little, too late - unless the rulers across the planet cooperate, and *all* stick the price up high enough to get the needed reduction everywhere. Not just as a BTW, *someone* must pay, namely who else but the consumer? Of course the 'polluter must pay' - at the point of emission, but that *real cost* of doing business will be then passed 'down-stream.' IF some market-based solution THEN the 'price-signal' must be clearly & *honestly* visible. Then, any compensation thought justified (for the 'less affluent' amongst us) can only come via taxes - a topic to be expanded below. By correctly taxing = pricing CO2, the externality it represents will finally be included - as opposed to being short-sightedly, apparently cost-free dumped into the commons, to the detriment of all. Climate-change is the final irresponsibility, but there are others, also highly important.

Idiots have been cutting taxes, *mainly* off the rich, at least from the Thatcher-era. One dishonest campaign was to 'broaden the tax base' = add a regressive GST = consumption tax, a tax which impacts the poorer far more that the rich. Not so incidentally, Lab experimented with negative-gearing, while Lib halved the capital gains tax = ½CGT; it was the latter action which lead quick-time to house-price doubling, let there be no doubt (a little well-directed research will *prove* this). One 'general principle' behind lowering taxes on upper income brackets is that the (already mostly rich) capitalists need ever-more profits to make them, the capitalists work, in so doing increasing economic activity = jobs & income to the masses. That's the greed theory; in fact they'd work anyway, so let them 'earn' their squillions - but then tax those same squillions progressively à la the Beatles; one for the rich, nineteen for the country.

Whereas there may be something in greed (clever, 'white' lies = 'good' propaganda, such will be more 'believable' than outright, naked lies = Saddam's (non-existent!) WMDs, say - all the while noting that 'believing' is what people do in the absence of evidence); the proof is in = income inequality widening to the extreme = the already mostly rich getting obscenely richer. Note another piece of pushed-paradigm propaganda; they allege complaining about the rich = 'wealth-envy' - actually, not. Just as the end-user must pay the cost of all externalities, *someone* has to pay taxes, and it only makes sense to get more off those who can pay more. The rich may get any 'extra' rewards in heaven (bi-i-ig perhaps), meanwhile they should pay a fair, progressive income tax. Because:

Consider the PIIGS; Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece & Spain. Following the 'tax-cuts for the rich' formula, they have run up *serious* deficits. The neo-liberal bankster-vultures are swooping, demanding their blood-money. The economies will be driven into ruin by austerity, as the people's patrimony is privatised. Again we hear "TINA!" - from both political sides, but bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic. The PIIGS tax-cuts, as in Aus, along with the rest of the neo-liberal rubbish, *forced* onto some (usually 3rd world) countries by the IMF, were implemented *voluntarily* by both sides - again, bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic = treachery.

Fazit: Whole countries, across the world, even including the US, are having wages and conditions reduced or destroyed by the so-called 'economic rationalists' = neo-liberalism + globalisation. That this is *not* in we the sheople's interests is so obvious one needs not illustrate it further, but it proves that the 'democratic covenant' is totally, knowingly & bipartisanly violated. Such rulers belong, however briefly, on tumbrels.

Of course, there is an alternative; reverse the deregulation which enabled the GFC, but 1st & foremost, restore progressive taxation, to pay for the sheople's deserved = human rights amenities = infrastructure (water, sewage, elec. etc.), get back on the track to the egalitarian Enlightenment, and vis-à-vis CO2, get sustainable. Start all that by stopping the lies. It may be a truism, but cooperation is better than confrontation; time to de-militarise the cops (to lose the appellation 'pigs'), stop attacking other countries (Nuremberg, cf. tumbrels) and for our rulers to start working for/with us, instead of against us.

-=*end*=-

PS We can see it happening; in Aus & elsewhere (not just in the PIIGS but 3rd world & other 1st world = US, say). As it was being introduced, we could see it was 'non-optimal;' take off-shoring, out-sourcing, down-sizing, lean&meaning and privatisations as some of 'the worst.' Job off-shoring quite clearly reduces both jobs available & incomes, pointedly of those laid-off. Privatisation hands the people's patrimony to the vultures for a pittance, our once-egalitarian state-monopolies to be viciously exploited as 'toll-booths.' Promised new jobs ('service industries' = hamburger-flipping, hair-dressing, plus all the 'no-shows') either a) paid far less or b) never even materialised at all. I saw some/most of it happening & screeched: "Madness!" Some, claiming to be 'professional economists,' said things like 'a rising tide lifts all boats' and 'a smaller share of a bigger pie could be larger' - but such 'weak excuses' were outright, probably premeditated lies. IF I can see the troubles THEN so can others, presumably equal-to or smarter than I. Sooo, are those in power, those forcing neo-liberalism + globalisation on us (we the sheople = democratic electorate), are these rulers a) not so smart or b) deliberately malicious? I tip (b), but there's never any accounting for idiocy, especially corrupt idiocy. See Hewson's comment: "vested interests were buying influence ..." A democracy 'for sale' = a corrupt democracy = a dead duck; where is my vote?

I have heard of the so-called 'noble lie,' whereby the rulers claim a) to know best and b) to be doing the best. Fail, as excess-CO2 shows, and the economic depredations visited upon us, we the sheople *proves*. Their 'noble lie' is a stinker; nothing other than a weak but truly filthy lie - 'worthy' only of common criminals. All else failing, may they rot in hell - they have certainly well and truly damned themselves. As probable (99.9%) psychopaths, they probably couldn't care less, and will not reform themselves - but it matters, seriously, to us and our world, that they *be* reformed.

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] corrupt  -adj. 1 dishonest, esp. using bribery. 2 immoral; wicked. 3 (of a text etc.) made unreliable by errors or alterations. -v. make or become corrupt.  corruptible adj. corruptibility n. corruption n. corruptive adj. corruptly adv. corruptness n. [Latin rumpo rupt- break] [POD]

[2] lie2  -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.  give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]

[3] deceive  v. (-ving) 1 make (a person) believe what is false; purposely mislead. 2 be unfaithful to, esp. sexually. 3 use deceit.  deceive oneself persist in a mistaken belief.  deceiver n. [ibid.]

[4] wicked  adj. (-er, -est) 1 sinful, iniquitous, immoral. 2 spiteful. 3 playfully malicious. 4 colloq. very bad. 5 slang excellent.  wickedly adv. wickedness n. [origin uncertain] [ibid.]