Moral Marianne Williamson: End The $26 Billion In Subsidies To Fossil Fuel Industry.

Hello Stretch,

How do morals connect with [the subject] ?

Thanks for asking. What DO morals have to do with it indeed?

Trevor Noah asked almost the same question. Here is Marianne's reply:

"I'm not saying anything everybody I know isn't saying. People are having a much deeper conversation than the establishment conventional political dialog presents. I'm simply talking about things that people are talking about. People understand that more is going on that just externalities. People understand that if you want to transform your life you are going to have to address things on a deeper level than just the fixes on the outside.

We need help from a higher power. Abraham Lincoln spoke that way. We are living in an aberrational time when the left has become so over-secularized in it's conversations. When I was growing up, people like Martin Luther King, People like Bobby Kennedy talked about the soul of America, the contest for the soul of America. It's only in the last few decades that the left has become so over-secularized in it's language.

Traditionally, on the right, there has been a focus on private morality, but traditionally on the left there was a focus on the issues of public morality. War and peace - is a moral issue. How we tax the rich in ways that allow the rich to become so much richer and the rest to struggle to even make it - that's a moral issue. The fact that we have millions of American children who go to school every day chronically traumatized in schools that don't even have adequate supplies with which to teach a child to read. If that child cannot learn to read by the age of 8 the chances of high school graduation are drastically diminished, and the chances of incarceration are drastically increased - in the richest country in the world - that's a moral issue. The fact that we have 13 million children who are hungry in this country is a moral issue.

To me, issues of politics should take as much moral consideration and reflection as anything else. And the fact that we have a society where we have made economic principles, not an economic principle that has led us to anything other than the largest wealth inequality in almost a hundred years, 1% of Americans owning more wealth than the bottom 90%, 40% of Americans struggling on a daily basis... WHAT ARE WE DOING???? What are we doing."

I presume she was going to say we have made economic principles more important than moral principles. And she is correct. America made a huge wrong turn when we elected Ronald Reagan. We had a choice then between reelecting Jimmy Carter who correctly noted that “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns,” and corporate spokesperson Ronald Reagan. We elected Reagan and forgot about the morality of 'turning the bull loose." We got a monetary leader, not a spiritual one.

The bottom line is: making the most money is not always the most moral thing to do, nor is it the right thing to do. What good does it do for our country if the rich get richer and the cost of that is that it is tougher for everyone else to get by? That doesn't promote the general welfare. That promotes the selective welfare. And that is not a moral thing to do. Helping corporations that are worth billions is not a moral thing for the American government to be doing.
 
Hello anonymoose,

Ever read one of her books?

No, but I think it might be a good idea now. Have you?

A Ronald Reagan only comes along once in a hundred yrs.

I don't think Reagan was a very good moral leader. I think he was an actor who pretended to be moral. He was very convincing at gaining the confidence of his listeners. Very polished after doing all those TV commercials.
 
Last edited:
Hello Stretch,



Thanks for asking. What DO morals have to do with it indeed?

Trevor Noah asked almost the same question. Here is Marianne's reply:

"I'm not saying anything everybody I know isn't saying. People are having a much deeper conversation than the establishment conventional political dialog presents. I'm simply talking about things that people are talking about. People understand that more is going on that just externalities. People understand that if you want to transform your life you are going to have to address things on a deeper level than just the fixes on the outside.

We need help from a higher power. Abraham Lincoln spoke that way. We are living in an aberrational time when the left has become so over-secularized in it's conversations. When I was growing up, people like Martin Luther King, People like Bobby Kennedy talked about the soul of America, the contest for the soul of America. It's only in the last few decades that the left has become so over-secularized in it's language.

Traditionally, on the right, there has been a focus on private morality, but traditionally on the left there was a focus on the issues of public morality. War and peace - is a moral issue. How we tax the rich in ways that allow the rich to become so much richer and the rest to struggle to even make it - that's a moral issue. The fact that we have millions of American children who go to school every day chronically traumatized in schools that don't even have adequate supplies with which to teach a child to read. If that child cannot learn to read by the age of 8 the chances of high school graduation are drastically diminished, and the chances of incarceration are drastically increased - in the richest country in the world - that's a moral issue. The fact that we have 13 million children who are hungry in this country is a moral issue.

To me, issues of politics should take as much moral consideration and reflection as anything else. And the fact that we have a society where we have made economic principles, not an economic principle that has led us to anything other than the largest wealth inequality in almost a hundred years, 1% of Americans owning more wealth than the bottom 90%, 40% of Americans struggling on a daily basis... WHAT ARE WE DOING???? What are we doing."

I presume she was going to say we have made economic principles more important than moral principles. And she is correct. America made a huge wrong turn when we elected Ronald Reagan. We had a choice then between reelecting Jimmy Carter who correctly noted that “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns,” and corporate spokesperson Ronald Reagan. We elected Reagan and forgot about the morality of 'turning the bull loose." We got a monetary leader, not a spiritual one.

The bottom line is: making the most money is not always the most moral thing to do, nor is it the right thing to do. What good does it do for our country if the rich get richer and the cost of that is that it is tougher for everyone else to get by? That doesn't promote the general welfare. That promotes the selective welfare. And that is not a moral thing to do. Helping corporations that are worth billions is not a moral thing for the American government to be doing.

Whish is why I re-post this piece every now and then...

The Middle Class is not “Normal”

There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class. Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels.

At the top there is a very small class of superrich. Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, "middle" class of professionals and mercantilists - doctor, lawyers, shop-owners - who help keep things running for the superrich and supply the working poor with their needs. And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people - typically over 90 percent of the population - who make up the working poor. They have no wealth - in fact they're typically in debt most of their lives - and can barely survive on what little money they make.

So, for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in “normal” capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.

You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.

This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years. The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.

French economist Thomas Piketty has talked about this at great length in his groundbreaking new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He argues that the middle class that came about in Western Europe and the United States during the mid-twentieth was the direct result of a peculiar set of historical events. According to Piketty, the post-World War II middle class was created by two major things: the destruction of European inherited wealth during the war and higher taxes on the rich, most of which were rationalized by the war. This brought wealth and income at the top down, and raised working people up into a middle class.

https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2014/04/middle-class-not-“normal”

It goes on a bit more and worth reading.
 
The hippie therapist? LOL She can take her "apology to black people" and shove up her dilated orifice. My ancestors had nothing to do with slavery and I'll not take blame for the deeds of men who were the 1% of their day and whose fortunes are today being used by their heirs. I saw a post the other day but I can't find it, but it wanted to trace the slave owners and their fortunes and derive reparations from them. I posted the same thing last year here and nobody responded. The truth is, most slave owners were prominent Jews. The subject is ignored for this reason alone
 
"First we need to pass a law—and most likely a constitutional amendment as well—for public funding of federal campaigns."


Maryanne must not know we already have public financing for presidential nominations and elections. Candidates who accept the funds for the general election have to limit their total spending to the designated amount and cannot raise money privately. These public funds were used by both the Democratic and Republican candidates in the general election every year since 1976 until 2008 when Obama refused the funds because he could raise much more privately and not be held to total spending limits or state limits.

We don't need more of a failed system. It is welfare for politicians forcing Americans to help fund candidates they oppose and giving needed tax dollars to candidates who have no chance of winning.
 
Once again I would beg to disagree. They only have the ability to get civilian jobs in a lobbying industry based on their ability to influence legislation.

Again you missed the second part regarding eliminating the IRS tax code and supplanting it with a FAIR Tax. They must go hand in hand. Then, all the incentives for being a professional politician promising free shit are lost.

I support the fair tax. Wont change vote buying very much but it would add transparancy.
 
Hello StoneByStone,

In her books she talks about how disease isn't real, it's just a state of mind. I don't hate her, she's not evil like Trump, but she is a New Age loon.

That doesn't sound right. I don't think she believes disease is not real. That makes no sense and it doesn't sound like her. I have to challenge that. Can you supply a quote from her or one of her books? Have you read any of her books? Where did you get this?
 
Hello StoneByStone,

She thinks disease is caused by negative thoughts.

There's probably some actual truth to that belief. And I imagine her quote was taken out of context. I doubt she meant to say that all disease is caused by this. I have heard her say that stress causes disease. I think that's true. But once again, not exclusively. You know, if you take somebody who has had tremendous loss and feels like they have nothing to live for, those negative thoughts might spur a disease on that otherwise would be normally taken care of by a strong immune system. Stress and negative thoughts do weaken the immune system.

If she gets the nomination, the Republicans are going to turn her New Age books into memes.

And that would be their undoing because they will be aligning themselves with a position against morality and most of the nation really values good morality over bad.

That's different. Republicans are a lot dumber and they like Trump because he's stupid too. Democrats are picky.

I think it is a mistake to write off Republicans as dumb. I know a lot of Trump supporters who are very smart and they are not happy with his moral judgement. They simply choose to overlook it believing that the ends justify the means. They don't like Trump, but they like what they believe he is doing.
 
Hello Celticguy,

What that article does is demonsteate that $26b is not just handed over from tax payers.
Your girl oversimplifies.

What she does is talks over the heads of the rest of the candidates. They are all arguing on the same level about this plan, that plan, the details, etc. She is saying we need a stronger moral guidance in creating our plans.

That said i do not object to eliminating ALL subsidies.
And by "all" i mean "all". Ethanol, battery cars, whathave you.

I disagree with that. I think we should be subsidizing things that are good for our society and not subsidizing things that are not good for our society.
 
Hello anonymoose,

You didn't expect them to vote for the worst candidate in a generation to run, did you?

I know it was an easy choice for Republicans to vote against Hillary but I think it was more difficult to think about just who, and what kind of morally bankrupt p-grabbing, contractor-stiffer they were voting FOR.
 
Whish is why I re-post this piece every now and then...

"The Middle Class is not “Normal”

There’s nothing “normal” about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it’s a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class. Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens’ novels.

At the top there is a very small class of superrich. Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, "middle" class of professionals and mercantilists - doctor, lawyers, shop-owners - who help keep things running for the superrich and supply the working poor with their needs. And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people - typically over 90 percent of the population - who make up the working poor. They have no wealth - in fact they're typically in debt most of their lives - and can barely survive on what little money they make.

So, for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in “normal” capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.

You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.

This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years. The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.

French economist Thomas Piketty has talked about this at great length in his groundbreaking new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He argues that the middle class that came about in Western Europe and the United States during the mid-twentieth was the direct result of a peculiar set of historical events. According to Piketty, the post-World War II middle class was created by two major things: the destruction of European inherited wealth during the war and higher taxes on the rich, most of which were rationalized by the war. This brought wealth and income at the top down, and raised working people up into a middle class.

[url]https://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/20...;normal”[/URL]"

It goes on a bit more and worth reading.

I'll read it. It makes sense. It's very logical.
 
Hello Flash,

Maryanne must not know we already have public financing for presidential nominations and elections. Candidates who accept the funds for the general election have to limit their total spending to the designated amount and cannot raise money privately. These public funds were used by both the Democratic and Republican candidates in the general election every year since 1976 until 2008 when Obama refused the funds because he could raise much more privately and not be held to total spending limits or state limits.

We don't need more of a failed system. It is welfare for politicians forcing Americans to help fund candidates they oppose and giving needed tax dollars to candidates who have no chance of winning.

That may or may not be a good idea, but whatever we do needs to be a part of a larger plan to get the influence of big money out of politics. That is what she is trying to accomplish.

Maybe what needs to be done is revamp that system by adding the provision that no candidate may accept any donations - that they would qualify for funding according to their message and how well it is received by the public.
 
Hello Celticguy,



What she does is talks over the heads of the rest of the candidates. They are all arguing on the same level about this plan, that plan, the details, etc. She is saying we need a stronger moral guidance in creating our plans.



I disagree with that. I think we should be subsidizing things that are good for our society and not subsidizing things that are not good for our society.
I am not in favor of government picking winners and losers.
Favoring this one over that one is against everything the constitution was about.

If she can only think in big picture terms she cant be taken seriously.
 
I am not in favor of government picking winners and losers.
Favoring this one over that one is against everything the constitution was about.

If she can only think in big picture terms she cant be taken seriously.

As far as issues she agrees greatly with Warren and Sanders on policy changes.
 
Back
Top