I Told You So

64 posts / 0 new

Man, Thom is really ragging on Obama today.

I think we're getting very close to the point where I can say to Obama's 2008 supporters, "I told you so."

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm

Comments

Tell Obama supporters what?

Have we become socialists yet? Have we become Marxists? Are the terrorists attacking us in hordes? Have we entered into a total economic depression?

I remember all kinds of conservative predictions. As of yet, I'm not seeing any manifest yet. I doubt many are. I DO however remember quite well, the conservatives who made those predicitions. ;)

Paul Novak's picture
Paul Novak
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2010 8:52 am

I am not a conservative; quite to the contrary. I wasn't a conservative in 2008 and I'm not a conservative now. I was placed into that category by many supporters of Obama on this Board because that was the only way they could cope with their cognitive dissonance.

Being labeled a "conservative" or "neo-con" had nothing to do with me and everything to do with my accusers.

When a candidate for office promises things that are impossible to accomplish ("Yes we can...change the way politics works"), why would any sane, self-respecting person believe or trust such a politician?

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm
Quote BcDct:

Man, Thom is really ragging on Obama today.

I think we're getting very close to the point where I can say to Obama's 2008 supporters, "I told you so."

Now you have exposed yourself as an infiltrator. There are blatant quantitative and qualitative differences in the supports of President Bush's Policies vs. those of President Obama. I also am dismayed at President Obama's inability to perform as the complete opposite of President Bush. The people became rabid believers and supporters of the lies by the Bush Administration to deregulate and begin 2 wars. Whereas, President Obama has try to spoon feed Health Care and all things good to a people without mouths.

Your statement is akin to an infant's primitive reaction to the nipple.

GreenMule's picture
GreenMule
Joined:
May. 9, 2010 5:30 pm
Quote GreenMule:Now you have exposed yourself as an infiltrator. There are blatant quantitative and qualitative differences in the supports of President Bush's Policies vs. those of President Obama. I also am dismayed at President Obama's inability to perform as the complete opposite of President Bush. The people became rabid believers and supporters of the lies by the Bush Administration to deregulate and begin 2 wars. Whereas, President Obama has try to spoon feed Health Care and all things good to a people without mouths.

I am not disguising myself or my opinions (I doubt that "GreenMule" is your actual name). I was a vicious opponent of George W. Bush; I am not comparing Obama with Bush, you are.

I certainly agree that public disgust with Bush gave the Democrats an advantage in 2008, but Obama was not the only Democratic candidate. He was, however, the only Democrat making pie-in-the-sky promises, which many otherwise rational people swallowed hook, line, and sinker. If those fanatical supporters do not feel sheepish today, then they are ignoring what the Obama administration is really up to.

Your statement is akin to an infant's primitive reaction to the nipple.

Since this is an ad hominem aspersion unrelated to the discussion, I will ignore it. It is a bit trollish, though, don't you think?

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm

BcDct, your attack on Obama comes from somewhere, but it is hard to pin down. Are you saying that Hillary would have handled the crap Obama has been served better than he? Do you wish Kucinich could have been the candidate? You say you opposed Bush, so I presume you do not want more of the GOP.

For those of us looking at the process of change with hope that all is not lost, working within the system is not about endorsing it as healthy or the only possible way to be involved. It is playing the hand we have been dealt as long as we have a seat at the table. It is not pouting or hiding out.

Create alternatives, please. Meanwhile, "yes we can" is how you get people to think they can do something instead of keeping them in thrall. Obama used a brand to mobilize hope for change. Now we get to see how much work it will take to get it. I don't see the dishonesty even if we agree that a brand is not the same thing as a program. Where was the movement with a program and agenda? The only "pie in the sky" was in the dreams of those who brought their own fantasies to the brand.

I think it makes sense to support Obama where we can and to press him for more. Getting negative about HIM instead of the context and his advisors is not useful. Even if he is a centrist by nature, the point is to move the center. To have a viable candidate to the Left of Obama means working to make it possible. It has not been there.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

I think it makes sense to support Obama where we can and to press him for more. Getting negative about HIM instead of the context and his advisors is not useful.

Have you informed Thom of this?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Maybe a bulldozer would work to push Obama to the left. Probably the next best thing would be to elect progressives to Congress. Congress can do a lot of pushing.

Then, of course, we're stuck with a conservative, corporate senate....serving 6 year terms. The Millionaires Club resists change.

Substantial change usually comes about with a crises that can't be dealt with without change. A multitude of them are on a collision course....global warming being just one. Economics another. Agricultural unsustainability another, etc., etc. Very critical times we live in. I've never seen anything like it in my rather long life..

Change is in the works...forced by a multitude of converging problems. that aren't being addressed. Whether it will be beneficial or not is another question. Reform...or repression?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hillary Clinton was honest and up-front in the 2008 primaries and, like Walter Mondale in 1984, it cost her the election. Remember how Obama slammed her for suggesting that enrollment in a national health insurance plan would be mandatory? Remember how Obama publicly denounced NAFTA while privately telling the Canadians something entirely different? If South Carolina Republicans could demolish the Democratic primary in 2010, what makes you think they couldn't sabotage it in 2008?

Hillary is no less conservative than Obama but she is a lot more competent and, permit me to reiiterate, honest than he is.

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm

I thought Obama would be less of a war hawk than Hillary. Wrong.

He even raised the military budget...again. The nation crumbles...bridges remain unrepaired, 100+ year-old water systems rust beneath our cities, public transit barely functions...while spending nearly a trillion a year on military nonsense and wars of choice.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sometimes it really is better to side with "the evil you know"...

In the beginning, in the '08 primary season, I was an (imagine it now!) Edwards guy. When his thing tanked (not that thing, I meant the presidential bid), I sided with Obama, thinking at the time, Maybe Hillary???

Monday morning quarterbacking can be a bitch...

drew013's picture
drew013
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Maybe it was only Chicago v. NY, but unless Hillary stayed married to Bill in his Corporate Ambassador Class world, she would have been savaged by the GOP swiftboater media. If Obama is "not one of us," Hillary is linked to the last "usurper," that sex maniac, Bill Clinton.

Her disapproval ratings rose as she blew the election. She did not do it well. I think it might mean that she would not have done as well as Obama with the series of crises and endemic problems.

I still think Obama was the marginally better choice, but I also think the problem is more systemic than about personalities.

The tragedy of John Edwards aside, the issue of poverty was darn good as a place to start. "Two Americas" resonated as the rich and the rest of us. But he did not address the conflicting narratives of the endless Civil War. We need rehab more than we need to impose anything on anyone. We need to stop fighting about our past and find a way to work together to have a future.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote BcDct:

Hillary Clinton was honest and up-front in the 2008 primaries and, like Walter Mondale in 1984, it cost her the election. Remember how Obama slammed her for suggesting that enrollment in a national health insurance plan would be mandatory? Remember how Obama publicly denounced NAFTA while privately telling the Canadians something entirely different? If South Carolina Republicans could demolish the Democratic primary in 2010, what makes you think they couldn't sabotage it in 2008?

Hillary is no less conservative than Obama but she is a lot more competent and, permit me to reiiterate, honest than he is.


By coincidence, I did like her stand on taking all the oil company profits away. We got only one but at least a start, I suppose.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm
Quote drew013:

Sometimes it really is better to side with "the evil you know"...

In the beginning, in the '08 primary season, I was an (imagine it now!) Edwards guy. When his thing tanked (not that thing, I meant the presidential bid), I sided with Obama, thinking at the time, Maybe Hillary???

Monday morning quarterbacking can be a bitch...

I was a Kucinich supporter myself. I'd have voted for him rather than Green Party.

Edwards tanked when he revealed his health care policy. After that, "What do I have to do to get media coverage, set fire to myself?" -- Edwards.

Yep. He was vetted not suitable. Welcome to the realities of the American political system.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:Maybe it was only Chicago v. NY, but unless Hillary stayed married to Bill in his Corporate Ambassador Class world, she would have been savaged by the GOP swiftboater media. If Obama is "not one of us," Hillary is linked to the last "usurper," that sex maniac, Bill Clinton.

Perhaps. I cannot imagine the GOP getting behind McCain just because they hated Hillary. I suppose some blame Hillary for Bill's indiscretions. I don't.

Her disapproval ratings rose as she blew the election. She did not do it well. I think it might mean that she would not have done as well as Obama with the series of crises and endemic problems.

That is not my recollection. As I recall, Hillary won nearly all of the state primaries, especially the big ones before the convention (remember Pennsylvania? California?). Had the Democrats used a unit rule like the Republicans, Hillary would have easily coasted to victory. Those rules weren't in effect, of course. so all this is speculation.

I will say, however, that if anybody thinks the Iowa caucuses refelcted the true will of Democrats in that state, they are whistling past the graveyard.

Hey, Obama supporters: You won; own it.

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm

Hillary thought she had the game won from the start because she had the old checklist in her hand. Obama changed the game and won the "brand" war because Bill was Republican Lite. How different Hillary might have been was not how she presented herself.

In political terms, we lucked out with Obama. He is less tied into the fixed structure and less defined than the old guard, and unless we fantasize about Kucinich cloning into a TV face, how are we going to play better White House games?

I want to know where they have Howard Dean captive. He is the guy I would consult about how to attack the Democratic corporatists. The best thing might be to accept the limitations at the White House level and deal with Congress. Primary challenges against corporados are a good idea, but how to run against Obama to make Left points in the primary may be about voting Green or something non-lethal for the general election.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:Hillary thought she had the game won from the start because she had the old checklist in her hand. Obama changed the game and won the "brand" war because Bill was Republican Lite. How different Hillary might have been was not how she presented herself.

She did win it, had the rules been different. If one exluded non-resident Obama supporters from the Iowa caucus and Republican shenanigans in South Carolina, she might have won it even under the party rules. But she didn't.

Quote DRC:In political terms, we lucked out with Obama. He is less tied into the fixed structure and less defined than the old guard, and unless we fantasize about Kucinich cloning into a TV face, how are we going to play better White House games?
If you say so, DRC. I can't imagine Hillary being any more tied into the "fixed structure" than Obama, but I suppose you see things that I don't. It is nice to see you "owning" your guy. That shows intellectual integrity on your part. Give me credit for the same thing.

I want to know where they have Howard Dean captive. He is the guy I would consult about how to attack the Democratic corporatists. The best thing might be to accept the limitations at the White House level and deal with Congress. Primary challenges against corporados are a good idea, but how to run against Obama to make Left points in the primary may be about voting Green or something non-lethal for the general election.

Axelrod and Plouffe were the ones who canned Howard Dean. The party belongs to Obama now. His war, his spill, his deficit, and his supporters.

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm

I supported Obama for the simple reason that electing him gave us a chance of something fundamentally different. I didn't actually expect it, but we knew Bill was a corporate democrat, and it seems unlikely that Hillary would have diverged from that basic outlook on governance. Both were vast improvements over W. Bush, and both are incredibly bright, and competent leaders as far as I can see. And compared to McCain, it would have been an easy choice whoever won.

I'm disappointed at how much has NOT changed, but realistically I have no feeling at all that we'd have been in a fundamentally different position with Hillary.

Jasper's picture
Jasper
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, we might be bombing Pakistan with bombers rather than drones. Larger payloads. Other than that, probably not much difference between Hillary and Obama.

McCain would probably add Iran and N. Korea as targets......and attempt to occupy them with Blackwater's newest incarnation ....since U.S. troops are scattered all over the globe in some 725+ military bases in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan.

We probably ought to recruit illegal aliens to stock the African Continent bases being established under the new AfriCom command. We're running out of army.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I have no regret about supporting Obama. I still think he inherited a country which has moved so far to the right that by just having a D by your name you are considered a socialist. Regardless of how you actually govern.

The US does require a real seismic shift in direction, is it going to be a far right country, with small government and big corporation running the show? Or is it going to move in a more progressive manner?

Hard, to say. I would like to think this oil disaster in the Gulf would be a wake up call, and it still may be. But sometimes watching America from over here, I just shake my head and feel as if I am watching some very bad Hollywood movie, with one of those really bad predictable endings.

It makes me sad, because I think as a nation there is so much to offer. What happened to it? I am sure those on this board who are older and wiser than I am (poly, DRC, Art) have a better grasp on where it all went wrong.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well Mel, I'm an old foggie. Been around a long time. I've watched the country go downhill ever since Reagan.

Drops in real purchasing power...cut basically in half. A gradual take-over of government by powerful interest groups....mostly corporate, and an adoption of Chicago School Economic theory by both parties. Basically, it advocates a strong option of finance over productivity....thus outsourcing...

The basic economic philosophy is, as long as a lot of money is made, a country need produce nothing. How the majority are supposed to earn a living from that is unaddressed. The temporary solution was easy credit, and inflating home prices so they could become ATM machines.

Part of it was a revamping of the eduational system...a move away from teaching critical thinking. Surface appearances took the place of critical thought...examination..

The military/industrial complex Eisenhower warned about became firmly entrenched in the cold war. It's now too powerful to dismantle...just as Ike warned it would become. It's sucking the lifeblood from the nation and we engage in these stupid wars as an excuse for the need for it.

We're forced to act as an imperial power to provide the excuse to maintain it. Corporate interests support it because it assures foreign resources/markets. Sometimes outright captures them rather than just maintaining a threat to do so with its 725+ military garrisons around the world.

Lots of things led us to where we are. Those are a few of them. I haven't a clue as to how to resolve them as long as special interests... corporate and military/corporate ties... maintain a strangle hold on government.

I fear for my country...and the world at large. At my age, under unfolding conditions, a hermitage would probably suit me best.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

My only real disagreement with you, poly, is the timing of all this. I think the country took a wrong turn at precisely 12:30 p.m. (Central time) on Friday, November 22, 1963.

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm

Older? Definitely. Wiser? No way.

I was a 5 year old when Ike talked about the Military-industrial complex. Over the years, I got a sense of what he was talking about, but didn't take it very seriously. I've been hearing about rampant corporatism for many years, but I have to say that it is only in the last decade that I've come to understand what that is really all about. For that matter, I would say that it's only even much more recently that It's become clear just how entrenched and unpenetrable that reality truly is. It's been like being slapped in the face with a wet fish. ("Oh my God. We are so screwed")!

The other reality that strikes me is that the mentality that promotes these maladies has been there all along, walking among us. I think I have a clue now, but the great mass of the electorate who can collectively do something about it are still way behind the learning curve.

The disease that ails us is slowly filtering up from the bottom. I believe that, over the next couple of years, it will percolate up to engulf a critical mass of people to the point where there may be a mood for reversal. When the small-time masters of the universe, the Slabmasters and the Sawdusts start to lose their "fortunes", will they cling to old thinking, or will they correctly identify where this all came from? There will be real suffering and unrest. (I'm talking violence in the streets).

I believe that we will be in the hands of the Conservatives when the worst of this comes to pass. That will be a good thing, but we are going to have to reach some kind of a bottom before things can turn around. The only question is whether America will be destroyed by that time, or whether there will be enough left to re-build. I think the latter.

Obama? Hillary? Hillary lost me with her dishonest and Republican-like primary campaign. Obama is losing me now. We knew that Hillary is a corporatist back then. We are learning this about Obama now. Makes no difference.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Poly, Art thanks for the responses.

I was born in 1969. Although I remember Nixon, Ford and Carter; Reagan was sort of my coming of age President.

Here's a story which at the time I didn't connect to politics, but I think it was indicative of what really started to happen under Reagan. In 1986, I went with my best friend to visit her sister in Northern Minnesota. She and her partner both worked as nurses in a mental hospital (forgive me if there is a more PC term for it). It was going to be closed in 6 months time, and I recall my friend's sister was far more concerned about what was going to happen to the patients than to her job. She said many of them had no traceable family and no where to go. I recall her being in tears when she was telling us.

At the time it never occured to me that there was anything political about these closings. I was only 17 and so, wasn't really that politically astute. But since that time, I know that these hospitals all over the country were being closed.

Weren't many of the people from colder climates bussed out to the west coast? So at least if they were homeless, they wouldn't freeze to death.

So in retrospect, that's my first real memory of injustice to people who had no recourse. No one to help them.

I know as a nation, you are judged by how you treat your most vulnerable. I suspect in that respect, the USA would fail miserably.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote BcDct:

My only real disagreement with you, poly, is the timing of all this. I think the country took a wrong turn at precisely 12:30 p.m. (Central time) on Friday, November 22, 1963.

Well, I won't deny the impact of three succesive assassinations of influential progressive thought....and the "me first, screw you" began under Reagan, not Johnson.

Trickle down began under Reagan, not Johnson. Turning education on its head began under Reagan, not Johnson. Feeding corporate and CEO incomes high enough to capture government completely began under Reagan, not Johnson. A change in tax policy that led to a deficit greater than all previous presidents combined was Reagan policy, not Johnson policy.

Johnson did feed into the military/industrial complex. He accepted really bad advice on Vietnam based on ideological intepretations of events rather than factual ones.

The beginning of the decline of the U.S. and destruction of the middle class can be placed squarely at Reagan's feet.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Harry Shearer:Visit lovely Santa Monica, the home of the homeless.
BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm

Very good story Meljomer.
Instead of letting them destroy our social institutions we need more and more mental institutions to help those most in need of help. To each according to their needs and all. Only a strong central government can redistribute to make a more equitable society.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm
Quote Art:

When the small-time masters of the universe, the Slabmasters and the Sawdusts start to lose their "fortunes", will they cling to old thinking, or will they correctly identify where this all came from? There will be real suffering and unrest. (I'm talking violence in the streets).

Why would I "start to lose" anything? My philosiphy is that I started at zero. Above zero is good and below zero is always a possibility. My job is to keep us above zero. Our first 2 quarters this year have now eclipsed last years record setting revenue and profits. We are hiring people each week. I just awarded volly of wage increases and performance bonuses to over 20 people yesterday. Hiring another sales mgr today (hopefully). It's 10am, and in between dinking around on the internet, I've sold 4 rather healthy construction projects. It's almost silly how much opportunity is out there for those that care to look. Jesus, what if we really tried?

Obama's idiocy and the liberal mindset can fck all of this up. Conditioning people to need the nanny government as their wet nurse is cancerous. The government taxing me out of business to fund those who choose not to work is what is recently popular. If by "old thinking" means less taxation and more incentives to produce, then yes, I will certainly cling to that. If crying about how the U.S. is all about doomsday, handwringing, and whining gets you somewhere, more power to ya. If people want to get violent in the streets as you fantisize, that's their option I guess. I wouldn't suggest it.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Mel, if "experienced" can be used for cars, I guess I can be older and wiser and not just "used." Reagan as a dividing line is a good symbol, but the forces he mobilized were already moving before they took the stage as stars. The Empire is being consolidated far earlier even than the JFK, Martin and Bobby assassinations. It happens with Nixon under Ike while the latter recovers from a heart attack. Nixon and the Dulles Bros. play key roles here.

The Anti-Communist Crusade was exactly what it sounds like, and it was a call to God and Capitalism against godless communism. As ideology, it makes Supply Side look scientific.

What makes Reagan "transformational" is that his reign marks the switch of national narratives on the American Century from the Liberal North to the Conservative South. The Northern version falls apart in Vietnam after a struggle in Korea. Being "the leader of the free world" now means fighting against movements of national liberation to defend regimes that have cooperated with the European colonialists. It means intervening in other national elections to keep the "wrong" party from winning.

It no longer makes the Peace Corp a way to serve liberty and democracy. Instead, human service is scripted to serve the goals of the empire. There are lots of contradictions between what those on the ground and those in the corporate or government offices want. Unless you have the perspective of Regents or Liberty U grads and are out to convert the natives to "Christian Americans." Christ and the Empire have a mission in the world in the Southern version.

Given the choice between looking at the lessons of history from Vietnam and back or taking the familiar story of American exceptionalism and destiny, few wanted to deal with our errors when we could point to the sins of the Communists. Reagan gave us familiar memes and a bid happy smile. We wanted to believe his lies, and he gave us an actor's sincerity in "credible deniability." God, I miss liars who care enough to look like they are trying to fool us!

In the Southern version, the Liberals have misled America to secularism and a loss of moral integrity signified by abortion and homosexuality. God and Country are re-united in a seamless patriotism and "faith." The coalition is based in a common desire to deny the facts of history and nature in pursuit of this dominant narrative of American Imperial Destiny. Each player has a different motivation, and trying to relate the agenda of religious conservatives with Corporate banksters will drive you nuts.

What they share is a common interest in the present narrative continuing. Everyone who is not "one of them" needs to be stigmatized as un-American or heretical. Everything that has a scent of paradigm shift must be ridiculed and prevented. How else to explain opposition to health care or extended unemployment benefits?

Anyway, the point I am making is that history is complicated and the stories we tell as if they have beginnings and endings are part of bigger and smaller themes as well. The American Century is as old as America. The two stories we are dealing with today come from the Civil War. The point where America became a foreign policy power comes somewhere around the Spanish-American War, but comes to term after WWII.

Our current challenge is to get over the American Century and do the rehab on Whiteness and exceptionality. Finding a mature American narrative to replace our teenage wasteland of sibling rivalry means seeing that neither American Century myth had merit. I have proposed the Pledge of Allegiance as the rehab program. But getting into rehab and out of the cycle of addiction is still the big challenge for Americans.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I find America to be quite exceptional.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote slabmaster:

Quote Art:

When the small-time masters of the universe, the Slabmasters and the Sawdusts start to lose their "fortunes", will they cling to old thinking, or will they correctly identify where this all came from? There will be real suffering and unrest. (I'm talking violence in the streets).

Why would I "start to lose" anything? My philosiphy is that I started at zero. Above zero is good and below zero is always a possibility. My job is to keep us above zero. Our first 2 quarters this year have now eclipsed last years record setting revenue and profits. We are hiring people each week. I just awarded volly of wage increases and performance bonuses to over 20 people yesterday. Hiring another sales mgr today (hopefully). It's 10am, and in between dinking around on the internet, I've sold 4 rather healthy construction projects. It's almost silly how much opportunity is out there for those that care to look. Jesus, what if we really tried?

Obama's idiocy and the liberal mindset can fck all of this up. Conditioning people to need the nanny government as their wet nurse is cancerous. The government taxing me out of business to fund those who choose not to work is what is recently popular. If by "old thinking" means less taxation and more incentives to produce, then yes, I will certainly cling to that. If crying about how the U.S. is all about doomsday, handwringing, and whining gets you somewhere, more power to ya. If people want to get violent in the streets as you fantisize, that's their option I guess. I wouldn't suggest it.


I certainly hope that he can "fck all of this up", if all of this is capitalism. Just like any bourgeoisie you are playing and exploiting the worker class by extracting value from their production.

Can you guarantee life-long employment? Only the state can provide the necessary supports for the workers for their lifetime of stable consistent work. The state can shoulder the idiosyncratic risks as well as the systemic risks of society along with the transition to new economies. All other ideologies are based on utopian views of society and man's role in the universe.

Pitchforks and ropes will be the tools of the future for the working classes.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm

Slab, you are exactly right about everyone expecting the nanny state to take care of them from cradle to grave. You sound like you run,own a small business that is the backbone of this country and its economy. I, too, run a small (very small business). Some of my worst expenses involve dealing with goverment regulation (local, state and federal) all of which have no purpose except to continue the justification of the jobs of incompetant bureaucrats and regulate me out of existence because I compete with much larger firms in the same business. A state bureaucrat was asked at a meeting by one of us small businesses owner that it appeared the state (Texas) was being easier on the franchise guys than us little operators. Her response to the attendees was that "they have better lobbyists than we do." Small businesses are the backbone of this country's econmony, period.

That being said, I also believe that the corporate/government collusion (huge multinational and their infiltration of the federal government since the formation of the CFR and during the FDR debacle) is and has been to the detriment and downfall of this "exceptional" country. Every President since FDR and up to and including Obamasiah has been a corpratist!!!

I found this an interesting article by Sowell ,who I respect greatly.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/thomas-sowell/3810-a-mind-changing-page

However, it is the responsibility of the government to protect our borders and coast at disasterous times (oil spill or invasion). Obamasiah has failed at this miserably while trying to push a political agenda that would be extremely harmful economically for American small businesses and consumers.

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am
Quote quaestorchickpea:. Can you guarantee life-long employment? Only the state can provide the necessary supports for the workers for their lifetime of stable consistent work

Peabrain, can you spell Greece? A centrally planned and run economy DOES NOT WORK!!! The nanny state is not sustainable. And in case you haven't noticed the US is in debt up to its proverbial eyeballs and soon will be under water. To continue to believe in socialistic government and fantasies of the nanny state is to also go along with the destruction of this nation and the continual move toward one-world for the benefit of the corporate elitists government!!!

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am
Quote bufffalo1:

Quote quaestorchickpea:. Can you guarantee life-long employment? Only the state can provide the necessary supports for the workers for their lifetime of stable consistent work

Peabrain, can you spell Greece? A centrally planned and run economy DOES NOT WORK!!! The nanny state is not sustainable. And in case you haven't noticed the US is in debt up to its proverbial eyeballs and soon will be under water. To continue to believe in socialistic government and fantasies of the nanny state is to also go along with the destruction of this nation and the continual move toward one-world for the benefit of the corporate elitists government!!!


Oh so into spelling contests. Can you spell Yo Soy Cuba?
They most certainly do work and work is the key to the class that benefits.... workers.
Greece is no a "nanny state" as you so describe it. It is a capitalist pig wet dream where small businesses corrupt the system and steal from the common good of the worker. You need to look at their system a lot more in detail.

The US is in debt since taxes are not high enough. Thom has proven over and over again that raising taxes benefits the middle class as he calls them and raises revenue for the government to accomplish worthwhile social goods. The USA is a corporatist utopia and no other nation has as much interlocking relationships between corporatists and the government.

quaestorchickpea's picture
quaestorchickpea
Joined:
May. 12, 2010 7:02 pm
Quote quaestorchickpea: I certainly hope that he can "fck all of this up", if all of this is capitalism. Just like any bourgeoisie you are playing and exploiting the worker class by extracting value from their production.
I do exploit and extract value as much as the market will bare. It trickles down to those here who make it happen. Lots of overtime this week. Great problems. Our competitors employees come here weekly and apply for work. It's an "evil" place with forced slave labor dontchaknow...

Can you guarantee life-long employment? Only the state can provide the necessary supports for the workers for their lifetime of stable consistent work. The state can shoulder the idiosyncratic risks as well as the systemic risks of society along with the transition to new economies.
Our state can't balance it's spending and is cutting jobs right and left. I've heard the same from around the country. But to answer your question, yes, I can guarentee employment to people who produce. I've never laid off an employee in over 16 years of business. I can also guarentee they will be terminated promptly if they refuse to produce.

All other ideologies are based on utopian views of society and man's role in the universe. Pitchforks and ropes will be the tools of the future for the working classes.
Cool. I've got some projects that a guy with a pitchfork could do. Rope work is a handy skill in the fishing industry and I know a few guys that are hiring capable deckhands.

My role in the universe is to make my wife happy. All else will fall in place.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote Bufffalo:Peabrain, can you spell Greece? A centrally planned and run economy DOES NOT WORK!!! The nanny state is not sustainable.
This is a wonderful example of fuzzy/lazy reasoning and wishful thinking. Greece does not prove any of this. What Greece proves is that Greece, somewhat like America and England, grossly undertaxes its rich people. Tax evasion is a national past-time in Greece (we've had this discussion before). Deficits are made up of two elements. Money going out and money coming in. It is no wonder that Greece has a debt crisis. It spends for the good life, but doesn't collect in order to pay for it.

Much the same with the Bush tax cuts. The expiration of these cuts will be happening at the end of this year. Unfortunately, I fear that this will be too late to save us. At this point, we are at the mercy of Europe. America will be one of the last to go down, but it will likely go down.

Unfortunately, Greece threatens to bring down some of the smaller European economies because of its Euro interdependencies. It would be like if Mississippi were to have the influence to bring down the entire American economy. The difference is that our whole economy is geared to keeping its black-sheep states afloat while Europe never signed on to do the same for its weak sisters. There is nothing wrong with the way Europe's more "socialistic" economies are designed to run, but things get complicated when they are burdened with the inability of the less responsible member states to provide for their own income.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Peabody, Yo estudia espanol en esquela para dos anos, pero no habla muy bien. One out of three workers in Greece worked for the government. That is not sustainable. At the current debt level in the US with all the impending obligations, taxing everyone 100% of their income won't stop the hemorraghing. I don't care what Thom says. There is no savin g us from the impending collapse of the dollar. That is and has been one of the objectives of the super rich elite Bildeberg group. The next major crises will facilate the excuse to move to a world currency. You can bet that the super rich elite will have exited dollar holdings(many of which already have) to other assets before that happens. When (not if) interest rates rise, all hell is going to break loose in the financial markets.

Let no good crisis go to waste.

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am

We are not at the mercy of Europe, we are going to pretend to bail their socialist unsustainable asses out with what? MORE DEBT!!! We are going to be at the mercy of the Chinese!!! They are not in debt and have almost stopped buying our worthless paper. They are also buying oil reserves all over the world as fast as they can. Africa , Canada, Iran ,off the coast of Cuba etc.

The World Bank and the IMF are the institutions through which NWO will be implemented. That is if the Chinese can be convinced that it will be in their interest also.

Socialism does not work!!! That will be the ideology used to bring the world to bankruptcy. Too many idiots want and expect everything for nothing. And the tax the rich doesn't work. They tried that in Greece and all the rich did was leave, exactly what they will and are doing in the US.

We are on an unsustainable course and purposefully being led down a dangerous path to OWG for the benefit of the few.

bufffalo1's picture
bufffalo1
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:49 am

DRC wrote: Reagan as a dividing line is a good symbol, but the forces he mobilized were already moving before they took the stage as stars.

poly replies I can go along with your post. It's all a continuum of what preceeded it...and given definition and put on steroids by Reagan.

Buffalo wrote: The nanny state is not sustainable.

poly replies It depends on what you mean by nanny state. Can a state distribute more to its citizens than it produces? Nope.

Can it more equitably distribute what it does produce? Yep.

Bufffalo wrote:

Peabrain, can you spell Greece? A centrally planned and run economy DOES NOT WORK!!!

poly replies: Name calling is against the rules of the forum. Refrain from doing that.

AND, a centrally planned economy doesn't work. Besides collapsing from its own complexity, the productive economy can't support the bureaucrats required for it. The bureaucracy requires more for its support than the producive elements can provide.

All service workers, including bureaucrats ultimately rely on the productive sectors of an economy for their support. Their homes, their clothing, their food, their transport, etc. In command economies, that gets out of sync.

A bureaucrat in Moscow who'd never been on a farm can't dictate how to run a farm... and what to grow on it... without really dumb consequences.

If any society, including our own beomes too complex, it collapses from its own complexity. The economic inputs of maintaining the complexity exceed the economic outputs of production. Sort of like using two barrels of oil energy to extract one barrel. of oil. Eventually, you can't afford to extract the oil...you've run out. of the resource required to extract it. In a way, that's what happened to the Soviets throughout their entire economy. "Collapse of Complex Societies" - Tainter. It's an interesting read on the topic.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
One out of three workers in Greece worked for the government. That is not sustainable. At the current debt level in the US with all the impending obligations, taxing everyone 100% of their income won't stop the hemorraghing.
Well, that's one ideology. You're entitled to your opinion.
At this point, we are at the mercy of Europe.
That didn't really say what I meant. We are at Europe's mercy to the extent that they are unable to stop their own bleeding. I don't know what's going to happen there and neither do you.
tax the rich doesn't work
Tax the rich does work! History proves it.
They tried that in Greece and all the rich did was leave, exactly what they will and are doing in the US . . .
They tried that here and it worked beautifully, the difference being that the rich were unable to leave and take their money with them.
. . . We are on an unsustainable course and purposefully being led down a dangerous path
Exactly why NAFTA has been such a disaster. I don't care how many rich people leave as long as they are required to leave their money here.
We are going to be at the mercy of the Chinese!!!
That is the conventional wisdom, but I am becoming less convinced. With the bulk of the developed world on the brink of ruin, who are they going to trade with? (Maybe Brazil). China may be forced to drag the rest of the developed world along with it as it's ugly sister, but China will remain on top, because they will be one of few countries left with an industrial base.

By the way . . .

Peabrain, can you spell Greece? A centrally planned and run economy DOES NOT WORK!!!
China's centrally planned and run economy seems to be the one that is threatening to eat our lunch.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:China's centrally planned and run economy seems to be the one that is threatening to eat our lunch.

China hasn't had a true centrally planned economy since 1978. They have a socialist market economy.

I think it's pretty clear that a fully top down planned economy does not work well. However, that does not imply therefore that a wholly unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the answer. Both extremes are bad and lead to a relatively small group of people with all the power.

There are industries that do not lend themselves to a market economy and some that do. Health care, fire departments, police, regulators, and such. But, provided there are strong regulations to protect consumers and the environment, market economies work quite well for many goods and services. Numerous small businesses with lots of competition, rather than the unfortunate monopoly capitalism we have going on now.

reed9's picture
reed9
Joined:
Apr. 8, 2010 11:26 am

If an economy is healthy and functioning well, market economies are by far superior to planned economies.

A market economy produces according to demand...not command. A market economy produces what people indicate a need for by their purchases, not what bureaucrats "think" is needed in a command economy. If there is a need for more socks, a market will indicate that. A bureaucrat would have no clue and might command a glut of gloves to be produced when there is a shortage of socks.

Reed wrote:

"......provided there are strong regulations to protect consumers and the environment, market economies work quite well for many goods and services. Numerous small businesses with lots of competition, rather than the unfortunate monopoly capitalism we have going on now"

poly replies: Exactly. And I'd like to see more worker owned/operated business become commonplace even among the larger firms....and still be regulated to protect consumers and the environment..

The only place for government ownership is in natural monoplies...police, fire, water systems, possibly utilities and public transit, etc..I'd accept government health insurance...with maintenance of private medical providers..

I'm a strong proponent of state-owned banks, like the one in N. Dakota and a Central Bank based upon that model.The Fed has to go.

That doesn't mean nationalizing every bank in the country...just additions to the banking system for a more stable monetary/financial policy and less cost in financing government. Government banks are capitalized by tax receipts instead of shareholder buy-ins..The state treasury deposits its money in the state bank. It enables the state, among other things, to be self-financing when it needs a new bridge.

The State Bank of Dakota and the private banks of that state have a well-functioning symbiotic relationship.

"Numerous small businesses with lots of competition, rather than the unfortunate monopoly capitalism we have going on now" - Reed.

Exactly.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I posted this article on another thread, but I believe poly was the only one to read it.

Anyway buffalo, do a bit of research into the downfall of Greece. There problems happened under a corrupt neo-conservative government (sound familiar) which not only lined their own pockets, but permitted their rich friends to get away with paying no taxes.

See eventually when you have a society where the people who earn the most money off the backs of everyone else pay no taxes, eventually that nation is going to implode.

But as the article above states, looks as if China sees an opportunity with Greece and is going be helping them out. Of course China will benefit as well, and all without guns and bombs. What a novel idea!

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I hadn't read that article, Mel. Fascinating.

Quote Reed:China hasn't had a true centrally planned economy since 1978. They have a socialist market economy.[
Fair enough. I figured I had better read up on the Chinese economy. The Wiki article hearkened back to what I had always believed about a good economy. Capitalism creates the wealth, but "socialism" determines who benefits. The Chinese system has a dual economy. The private sector has grown meteorically while the system of state corporations remains under firm government control.

These Chinese bureaucrats aren't so dumb. I strongly recommend reading the paragraphs on The Private Sector and The State Sector in this Wiki article.

It seems the bureaucrats are in the process of re-balancing these sectors. They feel that privatization has gone a little too far in some industries, most notably education and health care (the "commons").

One thing is clear. China is no "hands-off, purely free market" system. They definitely play favorites and they definitely manipulate the markets, most notably through their manipulation of their currency.

I have more reading to do.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote buffalo1:There is no savin g us from the impending collapse of the dollar. That is and has been one of the objectives of the super rich elite Bildeberg group. The next major crises will facilate the excuse to move to a world currency. You can bet that the super rich elite will have exited dollar holdings(many of which already have) to other assets before that happens. When (not if) interest rates rise, all hell is going to break loose in the financial markets.

Who cares about the value of the dollar? A depreciated dollar would help American exports and put the brakes on U.S. imports. Thom and the protectionists would love that.

Poor as well as rich already have an opportunity to move out of dollar denominated investments. I wouldn't recommend gold; when you have Thom Hartmann and Gordon Liddy both shilling the precious metals industries, it's already too late to buy gold. Now is the time to sell it.

Hardly any of my pathetic savings are in dollars. My biggest investment is in real property, e.g., my own home.

One thing a weak dollar would accomplish is to make American imperialism more difficult to finance, since the United States could no longer pay for its empire by printing dollars. No complaints from me on that one.

Quote buffalo1:MORE DEBT!!! We are going to be at the mercy of the Chinese!!! They are not in debt and have almost stopped buying our worthless paper. They are also buying oil reserves all over the world as fast as they can. Africa , Canada, Iran ,off the coast of Cuba etc.

Who cares about China running the world? I don't. If we're not at the mercy of the Chinese, then we're at the mercy of the Americans, the Japanese, the Germans, the Russians, the British, or the Indians. What difference does it make? I don't think any of the leaders of these countries care any more about me and my family than any of the rest of them.

BcDct's picture
BcDct
Joined:
May. 28, 2010 3:27 pm
A depreciated dollar would help American exports and put the brakes on U.S. imports. Thom and the protectionists would love that.
That's exactly right. A weak dollar is the goal! Not that it matters to most people, but the dollar and the stock market move in exactly opposite directions. China makes its exports less expensive by suppressing the value of the yuan.

America suffers partly because the dollar remains too strong and because it produces very little to export. These days, it's all about commodities (which, by the way, have no value added).

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

See, I told you. You are a poor discerner. The icing on the cake came in the form of the lie, "I will ignore it". Any yet, you dare to perceive me as 'a bit trollish'.

GreenMule's picture
GreenMule
Joined:
May. 9, 2010 5:30 pm

It's true a weak dollar makes for more exports. It also makes the imports filling the shelves at WalMart and Dollar stores more expensive. .Falling wages, rising prices. Who gains?

That would be a real hardship in my neighborhood.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Who gains?
Only the power elite gains. It helps the trade deficit a little bit and makes the stock market look a little better. That's what they want. I didn't say it was a good thong.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Art wrote: "China makes its exports less expensive by suppressing the value of the yuan."

-------------

Yes and no. To make the yuan rise in value, China would have to buy it up on world currency markets...reduce the supply. It isn't doing that.

We buy stuff from China with dollars. Dollars have to be converted in China to yuan...increasing the supply of yuan. domestically. Chinese workers are paid in yuan...not dollars. Chinese firms pay for transport and domestic raw materlials manufactured into products for export in yuan, not dollars. China converts dollars into yuan...increasing the supply of yuan through their central bank. The greater the supply, the lesser the value.

Internationally, it works the opposite. The trade surplus of China is retained in dollars...and disappears into U.S. Treasury bonds...withdrawn from international currency markets. ..increasing the demand for dollars. That drives the dollar up in relation to the Chinese yuan.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
To make the yuan rise in value, China would have to buy it up on world currency markets...reduce the supply. It isn't doing that.
China doesn't want a strong yuan. Also, it isn't just the yuan that trades against the dollar. The euro is probably more of an influence in how the dollar is valued at this time.

Market manipulation is the rule, whether it is by governments, industries or companies.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system