No doubt, some of you are thinking, “This loss may not be the end of the world, but I can see it from here.” Look again. George W. Bush’s reelection signifies defeat only if one defines victory as winning this election, or any other. Of course, if progressives are ever to govern—create a more just society through exercising legislative control—they… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (51)Page 1 of 1 pagesPRINCIPLES!!
Gee, what a concept.
The Republicans may have TWISTED principles...but they have principles...and they stick to them.
The Dems have lost direction. They’ve lost a base that should have been theirs forever. WORKERS (make the minimum wage a RED, WHITE and BLUE issue), MINORITIES (didya see the Hispanic vote? We need to reach that base that is conservative on religion...and loves strength), WOMEN (less talk of abortion...more talk on childcare, more talk on working women, more talk on wage disparity).
The Dems do not need to become Republican LITE.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 18, 2004 at 11:25 AM on the other side of the coin repuclicans think that democrats have twisted principles. Maybe you need to shoot the messenger for a change!metaphorically speaking of course. seriously maybe your principles are not(all ) wrong but how you present them and who presents them IS wrong. You don’t just give somebody corn to eat you show them how to plant and grow corn and youdo it in a way that does not make them feel stupid for not knowing how to grow corn. I am a conservative( mostly) and I get angry when I hear you (progressives) demean my intelligence, my faith, my core beliefs. I don’t want to hate you any more than probably you want to hate me but that’s what it’s come too unfortunately. Maybe we need to have a forum such as I hope this one is becoming ; to debate both sides politely and with some respect. I know on this forum I oft times have been troll like in my verbiage to my progressive friends and for that I am sorry. But do you think that an exclusive forum of just progressives serves your cause other than to have a general bitch session about the Conservatives??
Let’s meet halfway- no swords- no clubs and debate some of the issues if you will only look past my LOUSY typing skills.
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 1:56 PM What good is showing people how to grow corn if they can’t afford land?
If you agree that there is a percentage of the population (and many of us fall in and out of that percentage from time to time) that simply hasn’t the resources and truly are classified as poor, and that those folks genuinely DO need government help. Then we have no argument between one another. We are simply NEGOTIATING the degree of help.
Unfortunately, the Republicans and particularly the extreme right seem to hold personal responsibility above all else, including being born poor and or sick, handicapped, etc.
THAT is my problem with them.
They response is fairly close to Dickensian.
“Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 18, 2004 at 2:42 PM This whole attitude of “every man for himself” is cold, callous and very unbecoming of a CIVILIZED nation.
AND there is hypocrisy all around. The same “hard working, strong personal values” farmer that rails against the poor single mother as being a slacker...is also first in line to put his hand out to the government when his farm is in trouble.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 18, 2004 at 2:46 PM I have always found it an interesting paradox in values that the party that refutes/denies/hates Darwin’s theory of evolution embraces Darwinian economics.
Posted by Constitution Is My Bible on Nov 18, 2004 at 3:39 PM VERITAS ODIT MORAS-- the truth hates delay .darwin was an optimist! I meant the corn thing metaphorically speaking. the land you speak of is in my mind the brain where the seed is planted. And remember only you can help prevent big agribusiness! Read some of Helen & Scott Nearing’s books! Read william Coperwaithe’s A Handmade Life. Alternatives to the rat race are available and possible.
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 8:26 PM Why would I want to prevent big agribusiness?
Large corporates are GOOD. They bring EFFICIENCY...LOW COST FOOD...and employment to the economy.
They need to be deregulated MORE. They need the FREEDOM to grow their businesses, cause then we ALL prosper.
Small farms are passe’. They’re inefficient. They must be eliminated. There are plenty of jobs, just look at the papers. Walmart, Sears, McDonalds..they’re all looking for good hard workers to load their trucks and stock their shelves. Farmers need to be re-educated in order to adapt to the NEW ECONOMY. That is why we have the “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” Act. It’s a JOBS PROGRAM.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 19, 2004 at 5:34 AM while I take a conservative stand an issues like second ammendmendment rights I am certainley no fan of big business and especially agri-business. GMO’s are just the latest pleasure to come from giants like Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM). To have business trying to obtain patents on “life forms) ie soybeans and other plants is pretty scary.Notwithstanding the fact that agri-biz has ruined one of the truly great things about this country- the family farm but to seek contractual control over life forms is bordering on obscene.Read some of Wendell Berry’s work and Gene Logdson two of the very best writers in terms of how the small guy is getting devoured by the big corps. In the end I submit that big business can be just as destructive as big government- Once the reins of control are dropped by the regular citizen they are hard to regain.
Posted by redstate on Nov 19, 2004 at 6:42 AM My point is very simple.
“Conservatives” can not rail against regulation, and govt oversight of big business, and in favor of the wonders of the free market...and then bitch and moan about ADM or any other huge agriculture conglomerate when the the laws of the free market come back and bite them (the small farmer) right in the ass.
It’s hypocrisy.
And they can’t then come running to the government when they’re farms fail, but it’s ok to rail against “big city” poor people as a drain on the national treasury.
That’s simply MORE hypocrisy.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 19, 2004 at 9:57 AM Right on, Liberal AND Proud. Conservatism in this country today is pretty much synonymous with letting big business do whatever it wants. Conservatism as practiced today is a misnomer. Anyone who is paying attention is quite aware that the current administration is anything but conservative - about economics, about pre-emptive war, about the environment, about the role of government, about religion.
We currently have among the Biggest American Governments of all time (more bureaucracies, more debt, more goverment intrusion), and it’s being run by power hungry elitists. George Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. We - actually they - have built up the largest deficit in the shortest time in our memory. Progressives are not in favor of “Big Government,” they are in favor of asking the government to protect regular people from all kinds of crime and danger and to promote democratic principles. This includes protecting us from the excesses of “Big Business.” So I guess what you believe should be happening depends in part on the legal definitions of “crime.” The “conservatives” in power as we speak are working to de-regulate large corporations on a daily basis. 60% of corporations pay no taxes whatsoever while receiving huge giveaways from the government. If you take away controls so that robbing people of their pensions, paying people paltry wages, making people train the foreign natinals who will replace their jobs, bribing government officials, and eliminating competition are not crimes, I guess it’s up to the corporations to decide what “values” they should adhere to and how they want to behave.
It’s not that the values espoused by conservatives are wrong; it’s that the good, admirable values they believe in are being corrupted by the very “leaders” they voted into office. Is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe in loving our children? In the Golden Rule? In a just reward for hard work? A very brief look at what’s going on in the government and business community right now should disabuse anyone of the notion that these values are being promoted.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 19, 2004 at 12:32 PM George Bush has NEVER vetoed ANY bill.
First time in the history of the country.
Talk about asleep at the switch!
Four more zzzzzzs!
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 19, 2004 at 12:50 PM There are statistics out there that show that the Blue states have the lowest divorce rates in the country, and the Red states have the highest. Ask yourselves: which states have the lowest taxes? Any correlation to lowest standard of living? Lowest education levels? Lowest income? Hmmm. States with strong social programs in place have higher average incomes. Hmmm. States with bad environmental policies have high rates of disease. Hmmm. The United States has an embarrassingly low standard of living (infant mortality, health coverage, etc.) compared to many so-called “socialist” European nations. Hmmmm. It seems that weak-kneed “liberal” policies might just work a lot better than those conservatives like to espouse. Hmmmm. A lot to think about.
Posted by Amazed on Nov 19, 2004 at 12:53 PM Yes, so-called “liberal” policies do seem to work quite well. Also, which states pay the lowest taxes and get the highest returns? Hm. I live in one of those states, West-by-God-Virginia. We get $1.89 for every dollar we pay. Hm. And “we” went for Bush.
It seems, from my readings, that even business does better under more liberal, Democratic leadership, in spite of the clamor for deregulation and the push for Republican elected officials by Big Bidness.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 19, 2004 at 12:59 PM Yeah, it seems that even the stock market does better historically under Democrats. I wish someone in the media (or the DLC!!) would start correlating all these statistics and using them effectively to counteract all the Republican lies.
Posted by Amazed on Nov 19, 2004 at 2:00 PM It has occurred to me that one reason the red states are so concerned with morals is that so many of the people who live in them are divorced, living in poverty, victims of crime, abused by spouses, or practicing racism/sexism/intolerance. It’s a living commentary that Massachusetts (gay capital of the USA) has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
Somehow gay marriage hasn’t damaged the institution of “real” marriage in that most-liberal-of-states. But in states where marriage is already threatened by divorce and a plethora of unwed pregnancies, I suppose they have to blame someone.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 19, 2004 at 2:34 PM It is true that the economy and the stock market have done better under democratic presidents, but what have they done to make it that way? Any sitting president that claims to have saved the economy under his watch is blatantly claiming credit for what other factors control. I have this argument with my mother all the time that Bush’s tax cuts had limited to any effect on the market seemingly making a recovery. Yes Clinton did balance the budget, but in the 90’s America’s GDP was soaring because our productivity and efficency was amazing. Any moron could’ve balanced the budget during this time. Although Bush might have spent all of it instead so maybe that’s not entirely true. The truth of the matter is the consumer has a more direct effect on the economy than the president that’s the idea behind capitalism. Still someone has to keep an eye on the powerful to make sure they don’t try to profit from the little guy. I’m probably one of the only conservatives (that I know at least) that really does like the things Nader does, that whole presidential candidate thing aside of course.
Posted by giantsox on Nov 19, 2004 at 4:02 PM Business always makes a profit at the expense of the little guy. And I don’t fundamentally have a problem with that...we are capitalists ya know.
My problems stems from my idealism.
At the end of the day, government should be about more than just not allowing gunfights in the street and making sure that the streets are clean. Our wild west days are over.
Government (and in a democracy...that means..US) should be about the greater good of all. About what kind of PEOPLE we are. Do we have a fundamental responsibility to our citizens? My answer is yes. Should we make life all hunky and dorey for them. NO. But the social safety net must be there to protect children, the unemployed (and people do get unemployed even if they want to work) and to provide a means to live. We don’t live in a jungle. Personally, I ALSO ARGUE...that social programs aid law and order. When people have no options, and become desperate...well..put yourself in their place...what would YOU DO. That is also why I am such a law and order freak. My belief is that if we are willing to write the social contract in such a way that MY money is paid out to those less fortunate...well, then people need to BEHAVE. I’m VERY hard on crime. But that also includes ALL CRIME...including white collar. The country allows great opportunity to make fortunes. But if you make your fortune by robbing from investors or workers..well...I want to see you slapped in the irons.
I’ve gone on too long with this.
I’ll close by simply saying...there was a time that I would be classified as a conservative based on what I’ve just said.
It’s amazing what has occurred in the last twenty years. How bitter, callous and jealous we’ve become as a people.
It’s really very sad.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 19, 2004 at 4:14 PM Liberal and Proud-
I couldn’t have said it any better myself.
Posted by giantsox on Nov 19, 2004 at 4:49 PM I know you say Massachussets has the lowest divorce rate in the country and I wonder what the marriage rate is in Mass. Yeah you are right about the redstates divorce rate though. i am from connecticut originally and now reside in a redstate now and i was totally amazed at the number of divorces. some folks here have been married 4 or five times! and a few even got re- married to people they divorved! It befuddles me.
As to the point we that the wild west days are over—you have never been thru east LA or south Atlanta or south phoenix lately have you??
It does suck that we have decome a cynical,divided,dis-illusioned society . I really thought after 9/11 for all it’s horror would bring america together and for a while it did but it did not take long for the divisiveness to set in..sad.
Posted by redstate on Nov 19, 2004 at 6:19 PM As a small (very small) business dependent on the average citizen to buy my products, I’ve watched my gross drop through the floor due to the flood of imports since Clinton the republican signed Bush 1’s Nafta/Gatt. I can’t compete with slave labor.
I watched my retirement investments poof away and closed the accounts before they disappeared completely and had to pay high taxes on them becuase I wasn’t willing to see them go entirely. I’ve watched my three adult kids struggle to find jobs that actually pay the rent AND their food bill. I’ve watched as this country as a whole, minus the corporate robbers barons, financially wither away. I watched my ability to afford any kind of health insurance go so high that I now can’t afford any health insurance and still pay the monthly bills. So the question being: Who’s going to have the money to BUY all these wonderfully cheap imports from our long-time enemy Communist China where all our factories and ex-decent paying jobs are located when this country hits economic rock bottom? And it’s coming, folks.
My granny used to talk about the Great Depression (she was a young mother), the scrap the bottom wages and chain-gang jobs IF you could find any type of employment. How the wealthy said being poor and unemployed is a choice. Sound familiar? A choice! Having your teeth rot out because you can’t afford a dentist is what every low wage worker looks forward to? Get sick and hope it goes away or just die in your cardboard hovel because you got thrown out of your home since you didn’t have the money for rent after you lost your job when you got sick?
The anti-trust laws set up in the early 1900’s was intended to balance some of the corporate rip-offs (think Wal-Mart, billions in profits but their employees are so underpaid they can file for food stamps). These mega-businesses pay very little or no taxes (think Enron who paid zero for years) and somehow can’t afford to pay their employees who are the ones creating all that wealth? Wait a minute. Aren’t they the same ones who get huge subsidies from OUR TAXES? They pay in nothing and get millions from YOU THE TAXPAYER!
The New Deal was a social safety net designed to stop class warfare. Nothing more. People were angry as they stood in soup lines 2 miles long and watched the limos drive by to sweet 16 parties. This country was at a breaking point and the politicos knew it. A human won’t willing starve to death or watch their kids die. They have shown throughout history a willingness to raid others in times of great (or not so great) need. It may come to that again but with a hundred million more hungry people. How about the whole US becoming like East LA and south Atlanta, redstate? Hungry, sick, and full of hate but with lots of automatic weapons. Scares the heck out of me!
John Kerry and the Democratic Party? Not a quarter the man he was in the early seventies and that party seems to have lost most of its heart. Bush the W? Never had a heart and bankrupted every business he’s ever been involved in AND seems to lie like I need to breathe. Change coming? Definitely, but we’ve got to hit bottom before that’ll happen. Just like last time. Sorry to be so long-winded.
Posted by historyreader on Nov 20, 2004 at 1:38 PM I think I have been going through the grieving process in the last couple of weeks; I hope I am coming out of it and beginning to see a way to keep on going. Putting the heart back into the Democratic Party sounds like a good mission. If others feel as I do about getting and staying involved, that should help. I am going to write letters to the editors of major city papers on a few of my biggest worries - privatizing social security, bad tax reform and this awful war. That doesn’t sound like much but since television and radio is mostly controled by corporate media, people will probably only hear the Bush company line from them.
Trying to see the bright side!
Blue lady in a red state
Posted by Blue lady in a red state on Nov 20, 2004 at 10:57 PM Can someone explain to me the harm in privatizing social security? Our investment only earns 1 - 1.5% interest right now. I think if the government allows us to only invest in something safe we could at least get 4 - 5% instead. I don’t believe this is a bad thing, but maybe I’m not looking at the whole picture and someone can help me.
Posted by giantsox on Nov 21, 2004 at 1:42 PM Some answers in the form of questions to giantsox: Who runs the stock market and for who’s benefit? Who historically has skimmed the cream off the top? Why have most of the “blue chip” companies dumped their employees here in the US, outsourced the jobs to extremely low wage areas, give HUGE yearly salaries/stock options/golden parachutes to upper management, moved their taxable business dealings to po boxes in the Bahamas (think Dick Cheney & Haliburton), and still get caught cheating billions of dollars from the small investor even though the regulatory agencies are gutted of funding and honest inspectors? Where did the trillions of investment money go a few years ago when the “bubble” collapsed? Did it just melt away like morning fog or did it actually end up in someone’s pocket?
Like buying a car, you need to look at the fine print, hidden costs, and who really makes the money. Remember, the stock market is a crap table and the house always wins!
I re-invested in property and paid off the mortgage. Still don’t have any health insurance but it was a much better investment than the stock gambling market! Remember all those guys flying out of windows in 1929?
Posted by historyreader on Nov 22, 2004 at 2:59 AM The problem IMO is simply the volatility of equities in general.
Yes, over a 20, 30, 50 year span the market does increase. That is not the debate (although HISTORIC trends are often pointed at).
The issue is the PRESENT value of your shares at the time that liquidation is REQUIRED (in terms of retirmement).
In the short term, as we’ve seen, the market can be very volatile and there is the possibility that at the time that your retirement “investment” is liquidated for living expenses, you could have potentially suffered a REAL loss.
It is disconcerting to me to place these types of investments into a program where you REALLY need to be able to forecast, as accurately as possible, what your future payouts are going to be and how much you need to earn in order to be solvent at that point. Remember, if the market was to crash during the “baby boom” retirement years, do you REALLY think that retirees (old people that VOTE), will accept having to receive less?
NO. They’re going to run to the government, who will then be politically coerced into BORROWING that money in order to GUARANTEE a certain payout. Which only puts us RIGHT BACK to where we are NOW.
Social Security was never designed to operate and be funded the way that it is today. And now with declining American birthrates, the chickens are coming home to roost. REAL decisions have to be made, HARD decisions...on how to fund the shortfall AND shore up the fund for future generations.
Allowing equity investments into the market for this entitlement program (which IS funded by OUR money), to simply allow WALL Street access to huge amounts of government cash and to charge and earn HUGE commissions, without really having to WORK for it, and which WE THE PEOPLE have to pay for, is pork of the worst kind and more importantly places the SS fund into more uncertainty.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 22, 2004 at 6:07 AM Since L&P;clearly does not understand investing (and as a naive liberal, this is how it should be), and since many of you might have 401Ks, let me add some light to the heat.
To privately invest your SS, if and when this becomes possible, you should follow the same strategy as you would investing a 401K. This means you need to invest in a combination of stocks (preferably both foreign and domestic) and bonds. Bonds are less volatile over time, but also give lower returns over time. A good rule of thumb is to put x% of you money in bonds and the rest in stocks. A “good” value of x would be your age. So if you are 30, put 30% of your funds in bonds, and the remaining 70% in stocks. At 65, you would have 65% of your money in bonds, and the other 35% in stocks. This will, of course, insure that even a significant market downturn will not have much of an effect on your investments at retirement age. Keeping some stocks insures that if the market increases, you will share in some of the growth, even during retirement.
The optimal way to buy stocks is NOT to buy them one by one (and not to invest very much in your own companies stock, a mistake made by many Enron employees). I would recommend a nice index fund, something that tracks the S&P;index, for instance (if you get more sophisticated, you very well might wish to have some exposure to smaller cap stocks, but that is a more advanced topic).
I find it rather humorous to see discussions of such mundane issues by people who evidently have no understanding of markets. But again, one would not expect liberals to be familiar with current economic theories, especially something like MPT (modern portfolio theory). This does point to the fact that many people will need help in making their decisions, but much of that can be alleviated by having good default investments.
Posted by missedThePoint on Nov 22, 2004 at 12:42 PM Gee thanks, my poor liberal mind can’t comprehend and needs elitists like you to clarify with your mouth and take with your hand.
MOST Americans don’t work on Wall Street. Nor are they savvy investors.
That’s my point.
Oh, I understand...because their ignorant...they need to pay investment consultants. Aaaaah...now I see..thanks for clarifying.
More compassionate conservatism.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 22, 2004 at 12:52 PM That’s exactly why this proposal by Bush is so perverse. How many people lost megabucks in their 401(k)s or whatever during the late 90s downturn? I know I did. Social Security at least guaranteed (note the past tense) that people couldn’t screw that part of their retirement plan up. Now, if Bush gets his way, millions of people will screw their retirement savings up (to the benefit of Wall Street, as people have noted), leaving them destitute in old age. I guess Bush had better be planning to build compassionate “Poor Homes” to house them all.
Posted by Amazed on Nov 22, 2004 at 1:05 PM This is not Wall Street MONOPOLY money that’s being discussed here. This is people’s LIFE SAVINGS…that they are MADE to save by the government, to ensure that people do not wind up destitute by omission, poor planning or lack of savvy.
Social Security is invested in FIXED rate assets because they GUARANTEE a rate of return…a return that can be ACCURATELY FORECASTED and QUANTIFIED. AND it’s guaranteed by the FULL FAITH AND CREDIT of the UNITED STATES. EVERY SS recipient gets their money, whether the government lost, is short or underfunded. PERIOD. Is Wall Street gonna make up any differences?
The white shoe guys with the flowcharts and MBAs want to play around with public funds? FINE. GUARANTEE A MINIMUM rate of return. They’re all geniuses…they ALWAYS say they can beat the market…that’s what they spew at the cocktail parties and in their prospectuses. So…they can’t LOSE…can they?
I may not be an investment genius, but I DO know what’s at stake. And I know snakeoil when someone tries to sell it to me.
Just ask the folks at Lucent, UA, Enron, etc. And if you think those situations are completely unrelated to that discussion…then you’re just living in your own closed, elitist fantasy world.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 22, 2004 at 1:15 PM Elitists like GWB’s “base” have exploited the uneducated and disadvantaged throughout HISTORY..not US history...WORLD HISTORY.
That’s why Social Security was created. That’s why unemployment insurance was created. That’s why overtime rules, OSHA, child labor laws, etc etc etc were created BY UNEDUCATED LIBERALS LIKE ME!
God should strike me DEAD before I allow that kind of exploitation to occur during MY LIFE without going unanswered.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 22, 2004 at 1:34 PM From what I understand about social security, it does not, nor was it intended to work like the an investment made in the stock market or any private account. Social security is an insurance program to guarantee that workers who retire will not be destitute in their old age. It is not meant to be their sole retirement vehicle, although unfortunately, it is for many. The idea that SS returns only 1 to 1/2 percent is mistaken, at least in actual fact, although there may be some mathmatical basis for that. In actual fact, most people get back in 3 to 5 years all the money that they and their employers paid into social security. If they live to the current age of life expectancy, most people will receive far more in social security than they could through any personal retirement account. People are living longer now than when social security was established and that is part of the problem with its long range solvency. But it is fully funded until 2042 at which time benefits will have to be reduced unless adjustments are made. The adjustments do not have to be drastic; they could consist of adjustments like raising the maximum wage that SS is collected on. Privatizing social security will be bad for today’s retirees who are being paid their benefits out of today’s workers contributions. If less money goes into SS, more will have to come from somewhere to honor the commitments already made to current and soon to be retired seniors. While privatizing SS will be bad in the here and now, it will be even worse for the workers of today who will gamble their retirement away in the stock market and then have nowhere to turn for the kind of benefits they need in their retirement years.
Read this article from the Tallahassee Democrat; http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/9930851.htm
I have been looking at retirement figures for my husband and I for years; I know what personal retirement annuities pay and believe me, social security beats anything most people can do on their own.
Privitizing social security is a disastrous idea and we should all work to see that it does not happen.
Blue Lady in a red state
Posted by Blue lady in a red state on Nov 22, 2004 at 4:34 PM The amount of people soon withdrawing off social security will almost achieve a balance with people contributing. All I’m saying is that the government should allow people to at least have a say in even a small portion of the amount of their own social security investment. The reason why most people in this nation rely on SS as the only form of retirement is because we have become a nation of debtors. We buy everything now and pay for it (several times over if we don’t claim bankruptcy) later. With the governments bang up job on the defecit I don’t want them telling me how to plan for retirement. I don’t work for wall street but I understand things like 401k’s, airport bonds, IRA’s and investing in property. I think I could safely make more money off my SS investment than the government can but I’d only be willing to wager my money because I don’t want to hurt anyone else by being wrong. The government should leave the option of handling it if the individual doesn’t choose to. Some people don’t read the things I do, but SS in it’s current form is heading for the dump.
Posted by giantsox79 on Nov 22, 2004 at 5:15 PM Well, missedthepoint, thank you for that instructive little partaking in your profound brilliance in matters of markets. I am deeply impressed. In fact so much so, that I checked the info on the little brochure my bank puts out on the subject of investments, and it pretty much says the same thing. I once listened to those bankers, and did something different. Praisethelord for giving me wisdom.
Now, question 2, whither the Stock Market? No one knows. When a federal budget is mismanaged to such an extent, even Greenspan starts getting jittery, and we all know that when Greenspan burps, the rest of the financial community gets the heartburn. He is not the only one. Somehow I remember a whole bunch of little guys who plopped their savings into stocks and when the market decided to take a dive, they went with it. Great. Reassuring. In our Little Bethels we shall now pray for the Stock Market.
And right now American corporations should be investing in America… that’s basically the idea of trickledown economics. Reinvestment here in exchange for tax breaks. But that money is moving horizontally south and east. Our big corporations are more like the latifundia of Latin America than honest, patriotic businesses. First they create the Company Town like Flint, and after generations of workers bulti them up, they take the entire kit and caboodle to Thailand or Mexico. Don’t matter ho´w ,many taxbreaks you give them. Just like the military. We’ve been throwing money at them like oit was going out of style, because any suggestion that the Pentagon should start acting responsible with our sums has been equated with being unpatriotic… especially by people who benefit from military spending, like the Cheney Trail.. And what did that bring us? A handful of shoeless cameldrivers with popguns (sorry, this is a bit of color, I have profound respect for Arab culture) can keep our military for weeks… And the Pentagon needs more, more, more. More cannon fodder, more money, simply more.
Does that make any sense?
And speaking of little guys.... Investing SS sort of implies you have something to invest. Now if you have done your service to God and the Pope or Pat Robertson, you will have at least three screaming kids to guide through life. Maybe, as a woman, your hubby decided that his religious inclinations were more suited to the choirgal in the second row. What are you going to invest. Diapers?
Sorry, but “liberal” Keynesian economics still make sense in light of the neocon bilge, which hasn’t worked where it was tried (Chile, Argentina), and is not working in the USofA. WQe used to be a country that manufactured things. Since Reagan we serve. In other words: We have become serfs.
Amen.
Posted by Talleyrand on Nov 23, 2004 at 5:00 AM I believe that one of the mistakes a lot of conservatives make is the belief that we actually practice capitalism in America. I’m not sure what to call it, but when our taxes are used to subsidize large corporations on a very large scale, it ceases to be true capitalism and becomes very much like corporate socialism.
It’s akin to the red state conservatives screaming about wanting their taxes lowered while accepting federal funding in amounts greater than they pay.
There are so many double standards, it’s hard to know where to begin. Corporations, which at least figuratively (if not literally) steal millions from consumers and their employees, want less regulation and lower taxes. Big agriculture is the same way. Conservatives in general seem to agree with this trend. But they want to accept subsidies and get special governmental treatment. In addition, conservatives generally also are strong on the “law and order” front.
So one question I have that I’d like some conservative out there to answer is this: Why is it OK for large corporations to dumb huge amounts - tons and tons per year - of toxic chemicals that are absolutely KNOWN to cause cancer, asthma, and other terrible maladies in our air and water with almost complete immunity, but it’s not OK for a private citizen to use marijuana in the privacy of his or her own living room? (Note that an extensive Canadian study has concluded that marijuana does not lead to hard drugs, death, illness or have any other major ill effects.)
The combination of lasse faire economic policies and law and order for regular citizens policies has always been a mystery to me.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 23, 2004 at 12:53 PM As far as social security is concerned, I have read a great many opinions that it would be absolutely in the black until at least 2045 if the government would just stop borrowing from it. Any knowledgable readers who can comment on this?
I have a diverse tax shelter with a range of investments much like the ones described by missedthePoint. I lost money in the recent downturn. Perhaps over a long period of time the market will return. But as has been pointed out, SS was not meant to be an investment scheme; it was meant to be a nest egg for those who could not afford to take chances with their retirement.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 23, 2004 at 12:58 PM Typo correction in my above comment: I meant that large corporations “dump” toxins into our environment, not “dumb” toxins.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 23, 2004 at 1:00 PM LeeAnn wonders: “Why is it OK for large corporations to dump huge amounts - tons and tons per year - of toxic chemicals that are absolutely KNOWN to cause cancer, asthma, and other terrible maladies in our air and water with almost complete immunity, but it’s not OK for a private citizen to use marijuana in the privacy of his or her own living room?”
First lets just agree that you have two separable subjects here. 1) it is ok for .... 2) it is not ok to use marijuana.
The answer is that 1 (dumping harmful wastes) is NOT ok. In response to item 2, currently in many states in the US, the use of marijuana is illegal and thus not ok. The citizens are free to rectify this if they so choose.
I don’t know what studies were done, but clearly marijuana when smoked is a carcinagin on a par with tobacco. If one were to ingest it as opposed to smoking it (think brownies here or some such), i imagine the bad effects would be lessened (but one should know that there are still at least some bad effects, such as short term memory loss, etc).
Hope this helps!
Posted by sinceYouAsked on Nov 23, 2004 at 1:25 PM Actually, it doesn’t help. I was referring to the way in which neo-cons and other “conservatives” attempt to deregulate companies in ways that make it legal - and therefore “OK” - to dump the toxins, while (only as one minor example) they believe it is correct to continue to curtail the use of marijuana and keep it illegal - and therefore not “OK.”
Perhaps I did not phrase my question well. I meant it not to be about what is inherently moral or not moral, (OK or not OK), but about how the conservative government and their supporters view what should be legal and not legal.
I was making a comparison between what is permitted for large corporations and how deregulation permits poisons to affect large portions of the population and what decision are permitted for people to make for themselves.
Smoked marijuana is carcinogenic, but most people, even heavy users, don’t smoke the equivalent of a couple packs a day. It’s surely less carcinogenic than multiple examples of the chemicals we breath from vehicles and manufacturing plants. And it’s still illegal if eaten.
Posted by LeeAnn Gallucci on Nov 23, 2004 at 1:42 PM Looking for consistency in human affairs (such as lawmaking) is a disappointing task.
As a throwaway example: why can a lady be happily and legally promiscuous, but if she decides she wants to get paid for her “hobby” it becomes illegal? Very strange at best.
Why is alcohol legal and marijuana illegal?
The remedy to these problems are though organizing and voting.
The corporate abuses you mention are more difficult. They are inherently more complex (should we allow the making of batteries, given how damaging they are to the environment?). I venture these type of abuses would have been lessened under a Gore or Kerry presidency, but only mildly. The consumers are just too greedy, and the corporations are happy to help.
An interesting article on SS: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB110117497648381576-IVjgYNllaF3op2pZ4GIb bKiGm4,00.html
Posted by sinceYouAsked on Nov 23, 2004 at 2:58 PM Anyone who’s had econ 101 can figure this out. Anyone with any curiosity, the ability to read, and a library card (so far since our fearless leaders haven’t started burning books yet, just banning, bashing, and labeling secret) can find out most of what’s being said on this website. It is happening right now and there doesn’t seem to be much we can do but send a bit of our diminishing bank accounts to people like blackboxvoting etc. to support the wan hope that the fraud will actually be found out and reported.
Recounts and litigation against vote fraud are going all over the country, the economy is heading for the dead zone and we all know it or pretend not to, our government and media seem to be upset at all the fraud in the election in Uzbekistan but not here, and the bushistas/busheviks (take your pick) are purging all the regulatory agencies/courts/and cabinet posts left with any ability to exercise science and sound judgement and replacing them with people who will do exactly as their told. The corporations ARE the government, just like Pres. Ike intimated was coming in his farewell speech fifty years ago.
How does anyone stop a corporation from doing bad when the judge you take the case in front of was appointed by people who are indebted to the same corporation, the government regulatory agency won’t investigate and “disposes” of files that might look bad because the bosses got their jobs the same way the judges did or as in many cases now, used to work for the SAME corporations, and the media which is owned by said corporations won’t report it anyway?
I would advise, and am with friends and family, to eliminate your debt, pay off your home mortgages, clear your credit cards, end the car payment, and stop buying what you don’t need. The dollar is going down pretty fast against the euro and yen and there’s no reason at all for the rest of the world to hang onto the paper that the US treasury is selling like a fire sale to finance this debt. Do you realize how many dollars and bonds China has in their vaults and holds over us? Even if Kerry is somehow re-instated after his extremely quick consession of this election, he isn’t going to change the way we “do” business or tax the corporations or cut the bloated military budget or....which is what has to happen to bring the outgoing/ingoing debt into line. It may be just too late to stop the boulder rolling down the hill. Bandaids won’t work.
But cheer up! When the soup lines and hobo cities start springing up in the next couple of years of bushinomics, and people like you and me and redstate and your next door neighbor and even missedthepoint (what an appropriate name this person picked!) can’t pay the bills, you will all know who did it. Maybe these so-called conservatives will be put on a boat to Uzbekistan where they can enjoy the vote rigging in the kind of political climate they seem to thrive the most in. Or maybe to Iran, that bastion of one god-one religion-one government that seems such an attractive place to meditate on your current state of grace.
Of course they might win total control, the much-dismissed one party state that can’t happen here, and we’ll do as we’re told or we will be downsized. I love that term, don’t you? Irrigardless of your political affiliations or religious beliefs, the scary economic melt-down that looms in the near future is going to affect all of us. In the last catastrophic crash, people pitched into the pot what they had to eat and all shared the stew. Remember that.
Posted by historyreader on Nov 24, 2004 at 4:45 AM “I would advise, and am with friends and family, to eliminate your debt, pay off your home mortgages, clear your credit cards, end the car payment, and stop buying what you don’t need.”
This is very good advice. I follow it and highly recommend it.
As for much of the rest that historyreader wrote, i think it is clear that he is very VERY pessimistic. The economy is NOT going to collapse in the next few years. The voter fraud in Ukraine was both blatent and well documented. In comparison the US elections were virtually free of fraud (but there is always some, on BOTH sides).
Time to buck up. Sure Bush won this election (remember the silly rumors that Bush would declare martial law and bypass the elections!? :) ) but there will be another in 4 more years (2 for Congress). And another, then another. Life goes on. At least we are not as primitive and foolish as our founding fathers (remember the election of 1824 - or the **dual** between Hamilton and Burr?).
Anyone here still mad about JFK “stealing” the election from Nixon in 1960? Nixon was gracious in his “defeat” and salvaged his political life (for a different approach see Gore, 2000). I think Kerry probably reads history and wisely decided to help reunite the country and (probably much more important from his pov) not destroy his political capital, such as it is.
Posted by missedThePoint on Nov 24, 2004 at 10:00 AM In my opinion, the BEST thing about the way Social Security manages our money (so that we will have at least SOMETHING when we retire) is the way the SS deductions come out of your paycheck before you get your hands on it. You KNOW that money will be deducted, you PLAN on it being deducted...and when it IS DEDUCTED, you are OK with it. If SS is privatized, and the deductions are not made, and we are left to our own devices as to investing this nest egg, human nature dictates that we will be unable to put that money aside; the more pay one receives, the more one spends...human nature. It’s not like we have SO MUCH disposable income that we can spend more and invest the rest; this small amount that is deducted and put away for us will hardly be noticed if it is NOT deducted. It will just be spent on such extravagances as food and rent and school clothes for the kids.
PLEASE continue to deduct it from my pay. If I have to do it myself, I’ll wallow in decadence and blow that huge $$ windfall. Save me from myself!! (I hope my sarcasm is not lost on any Conservatives reading this....humorless, miserable wretches)
Posted by riki on Nov 24, 2004 at 10:47 AM I agree with riki that people do need help to save. I envision a SS system that is very similar to the current 401K system. The deductions are automatic and getting the money back (before retirement) is very difficult.
I believe that if we can trust people to buy and maintain houses, then we can trust people to buy and maintain their own retirement accounts (it is much simpler and with reasonable defaults pretty much a no-brainer, as opposed to maintaining a house with all its myriad needs). I believe that just as home ownership is good for people, owning their retirement will be good for people as well.
I also think that this new system should be phased in gradually (i doubt anyone would think differently).
The real issue, or so it seems to me, is whether we want to foster independence (my choice) or interdependence (the choice of more socialistic folks). In my opinion, suburban and rural people tend to favor independence, whilst urban people tend to favor interdepenence. The “battle” is really between these two poles (as opposed to say, the rich vs the poor or much more foolishly black vs white).
Posted by goodPoint on Nov 24, 2004 at 11:05 AM Yep, I’m about as pessimistic as you can get at this point about the economy. And yes, I dislike the fact that Kennedy Sr. bought votes for JFK to beat Nixon, but hey, look what Nixon turned out to be like. Of course JFK got killed so it didn’t matter much, did it?
But don’t take my word for the state of the money supply. Here’s an article posted today about our illustrious economy: http://www.tompaine.com/article/debtor_nation.php
Read it and weep for the children who are going to grow up to this world.
Posted by historyreader on Nov 24, 2004 at 12:23 PM Ahhh Historyreader! Who has benefited from Econ 101? Some article in the Boston Herald a few days ago on a talk given by some wiz at a big investment house might be of interest. Apparently the US has about a 10% chance of getting out of this mess.
But I agree with your statement entireöy, nay, your exhortation to people to get rid of debt and stop buying shit they don’t need. My sister works for a company that helps people out of their debt. I am aghast at some of the tales of woe inthe USA, where CC coompanies arbitrarily raise interest rates to… 26%???
And one more point: The neocons to Uzbekistan? Sir, or Madam, you have just described Rapture. But why Uzbekistan?
Posted by Talleyrand on Nov 24, 2004 at 10:15 PM Tongue in cheek since these “neo” cons, which seems to be a euphimism for the rise fifty years later of a fascist mentality similar to 1930’s Mussolini (good for business/good for state/no dissent from citizens allowed), are very interested in oil and there is a bunch up in that region! How about just out of this country and get back to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? Maybe the Ukraine would be more suitable to their political focus?
Also tongue in cheek was the reference to a college freshman level economic class. I was a mid-30’s college freshman and got in a LOT of class arguments with 20 year olds who hadn’t had crappy jobs for years and ran a small business for more years. But the professors loved it.
More to the point was the ability and drive to read and research on your own. Turn off the tv and get bored, then you’ll find yourself actually wanting to stretch your brain. It takes a little while to remember how to use it.
And a 10% chance of getting out of this financial train wreck? That gives me some optimism! Thank you!
Posted by historyreader on Nov 25, 2004 at 5:18 AM Talleyrand,
I appreciate you helping me prove my point, I am not anywhere near profoundly brilliant. All I said was that the formula that little bankers brochure over the course of 20 to 30 years will gain you more interest than SS in it’s current form. The information you speak of is out there and motivated people can find it. For people that don’t have the money to invest let the gov’t handle it. I also believe that I shouldn’t be penalized when I’m putting money aside for my retirement sacrificing things and watching people blow there money on trivial items. I sacrifice, I have no problem helping people who want to help themselves. I have a large problem with people constantly buying things they don’t need and wanting me to bail them out. Your right I’m not brilliant I’m just independent.
Posted by giantsox on Nov 27, 2004 at 12:33 PM Conservatives don’t truly believe in absolute Darwinian economics, but merely “selective Darwinian economics.” Darwin is espoused for ordinary consumers to be subject to, but when it’s big corporate constituents--like energy companies--then federal subsidies are warranted.
In other words, their little corporate clique needs the government’s help. The rest of you peons are on your own. Darwin for you, socialism for us.
Posted by Pete on Nov 29, 2004 at 9:29 AM The corporates dine at the public trough on the public’s dime.
Yes, economic conservatism...ain’t it grand.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Nov 29, 2004 at 12:33 PM I’m surprised to pop back into this and see fresh comments, so I’ll add a little.
New article from some VERY heavy people in the financial world:
www.tompaine.com/articles/quo_vadis_playing_for_keeps.php
Okay missedthepoint if you’re still around, read this one and explain it away to my independent small business owner/voter mind.
Folks, we’re about to go belly up. Stinking dead fish on the beach belly up. As bad or possibly worse than ‘29 since we’ve got what, a 100 million more to feed in this country? No manufacturers (I’m too small to count as an employer) or factory work, we sell NOTHING to the rest of the world but sh*tty cars and debt.
In a sick sense I’m almost relieved that the Busheviks stole the election again since there is little anyone can really do to stop it and I’d rather see the people in office who did it be there when the country collapses. Maybe these so-called patriotic citizens will get so desperate that they’ll open their collective eyes and see what caused their grief. Impeachment, criminal trial, conviction, and prison for the current administration may then become a possibility. Abu Griab or Gitmo would be the best place seeing as how the intelligent and truly patriotic citizens of the Ukraine are taking control of their country and I don’t think they’d be wanted there anymore. May they succeed in founding a fair and democratic process.
I’m almost out of debt, and will be in another couple of months. Hope the dollar lasts that long! How are you doing with your debts, people? Get out from under now.
Posted by historyreader on Dec 2, 2004 at 5:06 PM Please remember that Kerry didn’t lose this election, just like Gore didn’t. We keep hearing about Kerry’s vote for the war. He didn’t vote for it. He gave a speech on the floor of the Senate very specifically setting out conditions for voting for the war resolution. As a Democrat, I’m very frustrated about how we “lost” this election and how we can “win” the next one. The only way that’s going to happen is to not have any more Secretaries of State being co-chairman of any political party in their state. That concept, in and of itself, is absurd. Actually there is another way for Democrats to win the next election and that’s by having non-partisan, unbiased counting of votes. Does anyone (except FOX watchers) actually think there can be a fair election with Diebold, ES&S;, Sequoia, etc. providing non-paper-trail voting machines? It seems to me there were never these kinds of problems until GWB started running for national office. These problems will continue until the above problems are fixed. I don’t think Kerry ran a necessarily bad campaign. Recall, polls showed him winning. It was the corrupt voting system that lost him the election. Not his message.
Posted by ellenberry on Dec 4, 2004 at 2:05 PM In These Times is a great magazine, but it’s relative. When liberal magazines like ITT and The Nation go on and on about the problem of the Republicans and then offer the solution of the Democrats, I want to cry and scream at once. This is worse than useless. You have a problem with your Republicrats the same way we here in Canada have a problem with our Coniberals (Conservatives + Liberals). And capitalists couldn’t be happier.
‘Liberal’. What is that? It’s about as useful as ‘democratic’. Well, Not quite. Everyone (from Hitler to the Pope) claims to be democratic. Conservatives do not claim to be liberal, usually. Although I note that some posters on this site are aware that Conservatives today are not the same as they were in earlier times. Perhaps in some ways they are different.
We need to make liberal a clean word again! We need to reform the democratic party! (Interestingly, Those Democratic Party supporters who would erase all differences between their party and the Republican Party and those Democrats who would emphasize them both want such reform, which says something about democracy.) We need more democracy! - Not.
Those who are losers in the Darwinian, capitalist game of ‘riches for the strongest’ need to re-examine the game. Just complaining loudly because you’ve lost won’t cut it, unless you truly believe in the game. Consider this; If the game’s good, then we are all screwed, because the game of ‘riches for the strongest’ means that there’ll always be losers. In fact, given capitalism’s destructiveness, eventually even the winners will lose. Be clear; Only followers of Darwin ‘can’ believe in this game and it’s entrenchment of inequality.
I’m not going to say that followers of Darwin can’t care. I was chastised once by David Suzuki for taking that position, although I didn’t mean to. But it’s proper for me to point out the connection here between Darwin and the ‘riches for the strongest’ paradigm. Darwinian thinking supports the kind of brutal system - neoliberal capitalism - that America has embraced and, with help from capitalist institutions like the World Bank and the IMF, is forcing on other countries. I just finished reading an article about Bolivia, where the people not long ago forced American-based Bechtel to leave their country and hand back their water system to them.
“The World Bank’s most aggressive pressure campaign for privatization focused on the public water system of Bolivia’s third largest city, Cochabamba. Bank water officials believe in privatization the way other people believe in Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, and Buddha. They argue that it is essential as a means of securing capital for water development and to bring aboard skilled management. In public the Bank softens its tone, calling privatization just one option and “not a magic pill.” Behind closed doors, however, Bank officials are not so subtle. In February 1996, Bank officials told Cochabamba’s Mayor that it was making a $14 million loan to expand water service conditioned on the city privatizing its water. In June 1997, Bank officials told Bolivia’s President that $600 million in international debt relief was also dependent on Cochabamba putting its water into corporate hands. Bank officials would later claim that they didn’t like the details of the way Bolivia negotiated the privatization, but the Bank’s role as the force behind it is indisputable. The Bolivian government followed the Bank’s orders.” -by Jim Shultz, via rabble.ca, who’s written a book about this
In my cosmology, which I don’t ask anyone to agree with who doesn’t want to agree with it, capitalism comes from democracy. Democracy is humankind’s rule over humankind, without God. Capitalism does not come from theocracy. George Bush et al would say otherwise. Then again, George Bush says he believes in God. He wants us to believe that he also worships God. But as Jesus said of those who pursue lawlessness while claiming to be his followers, “I never knew you. Get away from me you workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:21-23) George Bush recently went to war as a way to steal a country that he and his capitalist class wanted. And he had to break major international laws in order to do so. “The US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties in an open letter issued Wednesday, just before US President Bush announced that the war had commenced. A US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,” the letter stated. The attack would violate the UN Charter, which forbids countries to wage war except in self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council to preserve or restore international peace. The professors condemned the war “in the strongest terms” and pointed to its militarist and colonial character: “Illegal action by the US and its allies would simply return us to an international order based on imperial ambition and coercive force."” -from an (www.wsws.org) article written by Henry Michaels (March 22, 2003). I’m a theocrat, not a democrat. Which isn’t to say everyone (and every society) who claims to be a theocrat is one. But it’s a free universe and folks can make all kinds of claims.
To get on with my story which is already too long, you need to know who your enemy is before you can fight him. Folks seem to be very enamoured of ambiguity these days. Is ambiguity, masked with sound and fury, a way to avoid (productive) action? As another scripture notes, “For truly, If the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, Who will get ready for battle?” (1Corinthians 14:7) Or do we avoid stating the obvious because it’s also obvious that ‘we’ are the enemy? One needn’t embrace my personal cosmology, or overview, in order to identify ‘capitalism’ as the enemy. Or is that just too big an opponent to take on?
Another interesting article from rabble.ca, if the link works, is the following:
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=35664Regarding the interesting observation that America is in financial trouble, I came across that information a long time ago. Here’s a bit of it:
“When President Clinton traveled to Indonesia for the APEC conference in the fall of 1994, he announced a grand diplomatic breakthrough: the APEC governments agreed to follow America’s lead and abolish their trade barriers, fully opening up their economies. But when? Actually not for another twenty-five years. On its present course, the United States wold be tapped out long before 2020, the year APEC partners have promised to adopt free trade.” -from ONE WORLD, READY OR NOT, by William Greider (1997)
There simply is no ‘free’ trade. (Greider himself refers to estimates that of all the ‘free trade’ happening, only about 15% of it is ‘free’. Governments, as he explains, play ‘market access’ games. Trade is manipulated. Power, and Darwin, wins and, eventually, it would lead to everyone losing, unless stopped.
Posted by Arby on Dec 5, 2004 at 10:00 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
- EPA on Trial
- Bush’s Selective Mourning
- Piling it High
The sewage sludge industry meets the light of day - Political Vice Squad
- Red-Boating Obama
- Political Climate Change
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
