Voices in the Conversation of our time, and an alternative to standard feminism.
Wow, this is Bizarro World. Some facts.When Reagan took office, the U.S. was the world's #1 creditor nation. When he left, the U.S. was the #1 debtor nation.Under the last 3 Republican presidents, $9.5 trillion was added to the debt.Under Pres. Bush and the Republican Congress, debt held by China doubled. Ya'll rant about tax and spend. What about borrow and spend? This ad was paid for by Citizens Against Govt. Waste. They are funded by Corporations who routinely out source to China.Some of the same Corporations that received bailout money and fund the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.And where are they putting their millions?Companies that received bailout money giving generously to candidatesMost of those donations are going to Republican candidates, although the TARP program was approved primarily with Democratic support. The Chamber is pouring 100's of millions into getting Republicans elected. This Chamber,‘US’ Chamber Of Commerce Hosts Seminars With Chinese Gov Officials To Teach American Firms How To OutsourceThe ties between the AmChams and the U.S. Chamber are deep. In addition to sharing staff members, the Chinese AmCham has worked closely with the U.S. Chamber and the Chinese government to sponsor a series of seminars in America to teach American businesses how to outsource jobs to China (called the China Grassroots Program). So, you go right ahead an vote for the Party that's been bought and paid for by the Corporations that have sold us out to China. I guess you have no problem with the Real Commies poorly manufacturing everything we used to make, as long as you can save a buck.
Craig: So tell me, O Wise One, has the debt gone up or down under President BO's leadership? Do we owe more or less to China under President BO's leadership? Oh, and with regard to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, do you have any idea what size 97% of their businesses are and where they get their money?Trust me. We hate the borrow and spend philosophy as much as we do the tax and spend philosophy. That's why we want to rid the congress of RINOS and liberal/progressive Democrats.And you need to refine your research on the relationship to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and overseas money.
All I'm saying is, "Yes, RINO incumbents=liberal Dems. No problem getting rid of either. Thanks, Joe."
Oh, & I have a 2-day training to attend this weekend, so I won't be around much. But everyone seems do just fine while I'm gone, so, carry on happily...
A sobering video.One turnover of power in D.C. won't solve all our economic woes. That turnover, however, is a necessary start to the solution. Continuing on as we are is clearly not a solution.
Craig: So tell me, O Wise One,For once, the respect I deserve.has the debt gone up or down under President BO's leadership? Do we owe more or less to China under President BO's leadership? Yes and yes. And I expect that to continue. The economy was really on the brink of collapse. I don't blame Bush, only. It started with Reagan's supply side nonsense and Clinton did some disastrous things too. The Constitution allows Congress "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." It was intended to keep us afloat in times of war and economic downturns.Reagan and Bush borrowed from our future to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy. Contrary to what Republicans promised, it didn't create a booming economy. Job creation under Carter was better than under Reagan. Job creation under Bush II was the worst in modern history. G.H.W. Bush wasn't as bad. He realized revenue needed to be raised and it worked. He got punished by Republicans for it. Clinton, despite being a DLC, pro corporation Democrat, did show some fiscal sanity and raised taxes on the top 2%. The deficit went down and the economy grew.Obama's spending is at least an investment in our crumbling infrastructure and new technologies. It went to keeping cops and firefighters on the job. One third went to tax cuts for 95% of us and he still gets accused of raising taxes. It's just not true. It's also not true that the stimulus didn't save or create jobs. 3.5 million, according to the CBO.Cont.
Cont.Oh, and with regard to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, do you have any idea what size 97% of their businesses are and where they get their money?No, do you? I'm talking about the U.S. Chamber, which is not the same as the local chapters around the country that do have a majority small business membership. It's hard to know the membership of the U.S. Chamber and how much is contributed and by who, to buy this election. They won't say.Trust me. We hate the borrow and spend philosophy as much as we do the tax and spend philosophy. That's why we want to rid the congress of RINOS and liberal/progressive Democrats.It was the RINOS (Eisenhauer Republicans) and liberal/progressive Democrats who built this country, created a strong middle class. I can prove it. It's the pro Corporatocracy Republicans who made this cynical ad that are in bed with Communist China and selling our sovereignty. They don't give a damn about you and I, and they don't give a damn about our country. They only care about maximizing profit and cutting costs, i.e., workers. They aren't doing it by innovating and expanding (except to countries with cheap labor they can exploit), they consolidate and cut, cut ,cut.And you need to refine your research on the relationship to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and overseas money.I didn't say a word about overseas money, although they should come clean about where the money is coming from that they using to buy our elections. It is the official position of the Chamber that out sourcing is good. Every non partisan economist will tell you, you have to deficit spend (invest) once in awhile in times of severe recession. The republicans $9.5T deficit spending went to line the pockets of their wealthy cronies. So, yeah, Obama and the Dems have deficit spent, not enough in my opinion, to pull us back from the brink of a second great depression. What makes it bad is it's added to the $9.5T Republican debt that did nothing for this country.And now you want to return to that disaster. Unbelievable.
Wow Susannah,I agree with Always on Watch. It is a sobering video. Ya'll rant about tax and spend. What about borrow and spend? The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. So, yeah, Obama and the Dems have deficit spent, not enough in my opinion, to pull us back from the brink of a second great depression. What makes it bad is it's added to the $9.5T Republican debt that did nothing for this country.It's okay for the Democrats to run up debt, but not Republicans? How about everyone stop? Allowing for inflation and the fact that the worth of our money is only as good as the word of our govt, I'm thinking we ought to be looking to stop worrying about who spend what and put on the brakes whenever and wherever we can.H
It's okay for the Democrats to run up debt, but not Republicans? How about everyone stop? Allowing for inflation and the fact that the worth of our money is only as good as the word of our govt, I'm thinking we ought to be looking to stop worrying about who spend what and put on the brakes whenever and wherever we can.It's not about which party is doing it, it's what they are borrowing to do. It just so happens, the Dems borrowed to invest in the economy, Republicans borrowed to give massive tax breaks to, mostly, the wealthy. If it were the other way around, I'd side with the R's. Reagan got his tax breaks, although he soon realized he went over board and ended up raising taxes 3 times. Conservatives chipped away at regulations. The biggies being, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. These allowed the banksters and Wall Street to gamble with our savings and investments.The Corporations got their trade deals and closed factories and shipped off jobs. Bush got more tax breaks and his wars. Conservatives have gotten everything they have said they wanted, except dismantling Social Security and Medicare (they're working on it), and it caused the worst recession since 1929. If we had not infused some capital into the economy, it wasn't going to come from anywhere else, it would have been worse than 1929. You can map this out. When 'pro business' Repubs have run things, the economy suffers. The record under Dem and rational Repub leadership have been times of greater economic growth.Sorry, but just putting on the breaks would make things worse in a recession. History has proved it. We should look at cutting spending where we can but we also need to look at the revenue side. When billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than the middle class, it's time to raise their taxes. For 45 years after the Great Depression, top marginal tax rates were 74-91%. It didn't stop businesses from expanding, entrepreneurship, job creation, decent wages that kept up with inflation, a manageable debt, personal savings and people still got rich. I would have thought that when reality whacks one upside the head like a baseball bat, one would pay attention. Guess I'm wrong. Reality is no match for for sweet sounding talking points.
The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.Heather, what point are you trying to make. That this is the way it is and just accept it? Or change it? Or what?
I wish it were possible to talk to a leftist without having to listen to the ad nauseam talking points, none of which is factually correct, even though I do realize that economics is an area where there is plenty of room for discourse. But, let’s begin with this: it doesn’t matter what Reagan did; that was thirty years ago. Now if someone wants to tout Clinton’s wondrous economic policy, should they also acknowledge that Republicans controlled congress?No?Now speaking of intellectual dishonesty, "It just so happens, the Dems borrowed to invest in the economy ..." Do tell. In the face of investing in the economy, how does one explain high unemployment? Shall we explain it away by proclaiming, “Bush started it?” Let us pretend for a moment that contrary to the limited understanding of most people, the Constitution assigns the power of the purse to the House of Representatives. Do we hold Bush responsible when Democrats assumed leadership of the House in 2006?Who was it in 1993, by the way, who directed advancing mortgage loans to people who could not afford them? How did Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and that crook Chris Dodd fix the housing problem? Was it by accepting campaign contributions from banking institutions?Finally, how is handing America’s limited monetary resources over to unions, failed banks, bankrupt industries, or extraordinary debt (owed to China) “investing” in the economy? And by all means, let’s tax the living crap out of people, rather than putting people back to work and having a national dialogue about spending cuts.
AOW~ Sobering indeed. Craig~ You've always gotten respect here -- :) In order to address you points, please see the very last of this comment.Heather~ Yes, it is. I think everyone should see this before they vote on Tuesday. Email it to as many people as you can...MUSTANG (& Craig)!! Fine, FINE comment you just made. WOW. You boiled it all down, didn't you? Everything I was thinking as I read Craig's points, & more! Perfect.Lively discussion. Thanks all~
The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.Heather, what point are you trying to make. That this is the way it is and just accept it? Or change it? Or what?Craig, Basically, it's a statement of fact. Go into debt and you are a slave to the one you owe until you can get out from under the burden (pay it off, die etc). Some countries seem to like to start wars in order to clear national debt. Post WWI Germany comes to mind....First, we do need to accept our current precarious reality. And if we can change it, that would be even better. Extra credit if you can guess who I was quoting :)H
Craig: "How about everyone stop?" Every right wing conservative I know, including Tea Party members agrees with that.I've never personally met a Democrat leftist who does.BYW: I give Reagan and both Bushes negative credit for failing to halt or slow the growth of government. But I give President BO negative credit for allowing it to more than double what the two of them did put together.
I wish it were possible to talk to a leftist without having to listen to the ad nauseam talking points, none of which is factually correct,Mustang, If you could, be specific.it doesn’t matter what Reagan did; that was thirty years ago.Unfortunately, a presidents policies and philosophies live long after their terms. I doubt any Conservative would agree with a statement like, "it doesn’t matter what FDR did; that was seventy five years ago".There really was a Reagan Revolution. He jumped on the obsession with deregulation (see S&L), he weakened oversight and ignored regulations on big business. He declared war on unions with the PATCO strike. He made in okay for businesses to hire permanent replacements. Union membership among private wage earners was around 28% when he took office. It's now about 7%. Public employee unions bring it to about 10%. So, when you try to blame unions for driving away jobs, it doesn't hold water. He drastically changed the tax structure of the country. Sure, no one likes paying taxes, but the promises made about lower taxes never happened. Incomes fell for 4/5ths of Americans. Income and wealth have been drastically redistributed upward. We now have the largest disparity between the rich and the rest of us than any industrialized nation on earth. The largest since the Gilded Age. Poverty rates have risen steadily (they took a break during Clinton) His policies on trade, size of govt., underfunding social programs, all that and more, live on. People still believe the fairy tale that lowering taxes will increase revenue. He taught Dick Cheney that "deficits don't matter".I know a lot of Conservatives would also take issue with your statement.
Now if someone wants to tout Clinton’s wondrous economic policy, should they also acknowledge that Republicans controlled congress?I don't tout his "wondrous economic policy". He did end up sorta balancing the budget but he also gave us NAFTA, the WTO and he signed Gramm, Leach, Bliley. all disasters.As far as the Republicans controlling Congress. Do you know how budgets are made? The Pres. is required, by law, to submit a budget to Congress. Congress then comes up with budget resolutions and they vote on 20 different appropriation bills. If Congress messes with the budget too much, they run the risk of veto. So, unless the Repubs had a veto-proof majority, they don't have much input on budgets. Same with Bush and Dem controlled Congress his last 2 years. Even if the Repubs were responsible for Clinton's budgets, they weren't, but for arguments sake, they were. How do you explain the immediate return to deficits with the same Congress and a Republican pres.? In the face of investing in the economy, how does one explain high unemployment? Shall we explain it away by proclaiming, “Bush started it?”Well, yeah. You can't dispute the fact that we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama took office. I agree, unemployment is way too high and they over promised on the stimulus package. It was too small to begin with. It was watered down to get Republican support and it is taking too long to implement. You're wrong, though, to think Obama's policies have made things worse. More private sector jobs have been created under Obama than in Bushes 8 years. Another problem is the gutted manufacturing base. Decent jobs just aren't available, even in this recovery.The economy, while still dismal, is in better shape two years into Obama than it was two years into Reagan and this recession was far worse than the one Reagan inherited.
Do we hold Bush responsible when Democrats assumed leadership of the House in 2006?Absolutely. Unless you can show me some legislation passed by the Dems that screwed things up.Who was it in 1993, by the way, who directed advancing mortgage loans to people who could not afford them? How did Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and that crook Chris Dodd fix the housing problem? Was it by accepting campaign contributions from banking institutions?Nobody directed advancing mortgage loans to people who could not afford them. You're talking about Clinton strengthening the enforcement of CRA. He did so because Reagan hadn't enforced it and lenders were redlining. CRA had nothing to do with the meltdown. Read thisNo one forced mortgage lenders to give no-down, no-income loans. They peddled that crap because they were making huge money. No one in govt. forced ratings houses to give AAA ratings to those toxic, bundled, mortgages. No one forced the banksters and investors to create Credit Default Swaps and synthetic collateralized debt obligations, which were just bets on the crappy "assets". Made legal by deregulation.
Who was pimping subprimes? The Man. The Guru. The guy who could raise or lower the Dow by farting in a certain direction. Alan Greenspan in 2005,"Innovation has brought about a multitude of new products, such as subprime loans and niche credit programs for immigrants. . . . With these advances in technology, lenders have taken advantage of credit-scoring models and other techniques for efficiently extending credit to a broader spectrum of consumers. . . .Where once more-marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately. These improvements have led to rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending . . . fostering constructive innovation that is both responsive to market demand and beneficial to consumers."Finally, how is handing America’s limited monetary resources over to unions, failed banks, bankrupt industries, or extraordinary debt (owed to China) “investing” in the economy?TARP money was given to the banksters and GM. Most of it has been paid back. The UAW made concessions as part of the GM deal. Stimulus money, the part that wasn't tax breaks, has gone largely to infrastructure projects. So, what are you talking about?And by all means, let’s tax the living crap out of people, rather than putting people back to work and having a national dialogue about spending cuts.We've tax cut the crap out of our country. Bush starts a couple wars and cuts taxes. Who the hell is going to pay for that? If the people who paid for the video in Susannah's post hadn't shipped off the good jobs, maybe people could go back to work. Spending cuts, sure. Let's start with those awful Socialized health care schemes, TriCare and the V.A.
Craig~ You've always gotten respect here -- :)Then please, Susannah, address me by my proper title,Wise One:}
I come back from a two-day training & then trick-or-treating w/ my kids, & my blog has been usurped by "Wise One" with whom I have stark differences of opinion...and one whose verbosity is rather daunting at the moment. (Oh dear & kind 'Wise One,' how 'bout start an individual blog?)Happy Halloween, all!
If the people of the United States intend to send their young men and women into harm’s way, then the people of the United States must bear the short and long-term costs of war. This is another reason why going to war should be a matter of national and congressional debate. Part of this cost is the loss of life among our warriors, but so too is taking care of veterans. This was part of the deal when they joined or were drafted into the military services. Do you suggest America not honor its commitment to veterans? It isn’t socialism, it is a contract. It’s paying the bill for deciding to rush into war. If you think that getting treatment in a VA hospital is an uplifting human experience, then you’ve never been to a VA hospital. If you think Medicare is wonderful, then no one has forced you into it yet. Likewise, many people who depend on government subsidy checks have much in the way of self-esteem. I think that when you strip away a human being’s sense of self-worth, you’ve destroyed that person. This is what the left stands for; it is why I detest the left.I don’t believe in big government simply because more government equates to less individual liberty. I actually deplore what the leftists have done to this country since 1900. Government is wasteful and corrupt —and yet, you want more government. We should wonder how these government programs advance the quality of life among the people. Have our children become better educated? Not according to data indicating that the US ranks close to the bottom in math and science when compared to other industrialized nations. Now you’ve given us socialized medicine? Wonderful. And you’re proud of that? I’ve read the bill and it is despicable.
President Wilson changed the tax structure of this country, not Reagan. There was a time when labor unions played an important role in our country; they, like government, have become unacceptably corrupt. Moreover, neither unions nor minimum wage laws affect worker productivity; they only prohibit employers from paying less than government/unions decide is an acceptable pay off for voting Democratic. When the cost of labor exceeds the next best thing, then industries will choose to invest in the next best thing. The auto industry invests in automation precisely because in the end, it is cheaper than hiring union laborers. Consider the number of layoffs in the auto industry and then explain how unions have strengthened America.Barack Obama is operating from a 1950s mindset, no doubt the product of his communist education via dear old Granny and Frank Marshal Davis. Unfortunately, Craig and Mr. Obama have learned nothing from history, and understand even less. Higher teacher pay is not the solution to our horrific education system, which is already more expensive than it is in countries where students have out-performed American students for decades. Mr. Obama and other idiots want government subsidies to reduce the cost of college but all they are doing is making education less affordable. It is the same with agriculture, medicine, and developing alternative energy resources. How has ethanol improved our world? It hasn’t improved the environment any more than the trillions of dollars CA spend on the diamond lanes around Los Angeles.Government is the solution to few problems. This is because government is the problem. It is no more, or less, than socialism bottled as progressivism and sold to a new generation of under-educated American voters. No wonder Democrats want to inspire young people to vote; it has nothing to do with exercising democracy. No, I think the government prefers that stupid people vote early and often. Obama didn’t create the housing meltdown; that was Clinton. Mr. Obama distinguished himself by creating $3-trillion in debt to a foreign power. “This sale won’t last long, so buy now before it’s too late,” is a useful strategy in sales. Government does this too: “We must act now, right this minute, or we are all doomed.” In defending the welfare state, leftists proclaim we must take care of the poor —never mind that it has been leftist policy that made them poor, and kept them poor, and will keep them in that condition out of political expediency. The amount of money needed to bring every American above the poverty line is a small fraction of what government has already spent. Has anyone noticed that progressives have pretended to care about poor people for the past forty years, and yet there are still poor people? At what point do we wonder why the welfare state it isn’t working? Progressives have but one real interest in poverty: reelection.Among leftist politicians (including some republicans), success comes from creating government programs that achieve little, but which look very good on a professional resume. Cost is irrelevant. Once in place, government programs allow politicians to make decisions without having to worry about the constraint of prices, or the consequences of any of those decisions. There is no better example of this than Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in the congress, or Jaime Gorelick in the Justice Department, or Madeline Albrecht in the State Department. All of these people should be in federal prison, along with Duke Cunningham, Charlie Rangel, and Maxine Waters.
Craig: "How about everyone stop?" Every right wing conservative I know, including Tea Party members agrees with that.Hi Joe,I'm Heather and meant to address Craig's apparent insistence on pounding his point about "the right" not being perfect.We are where we are and may never be able to completely untangle the knots in the string of who did what. But we do have the ability to say "NO MORE". That's all I meant.Perhaps it isn't too late?Well, yeah. You can't dispute the fact that we were losing 700,000 jobs a month when Obama took office. I agree, unemployment is way too high and they over promised on the stimulus package. It was too small to begin with. It was watered down to get Republican support and it is taking too long to implement. Um. Wasn't the economic crunch during that time on a bit more of a global scale? That was Bush's fault, too?Hi Susannah.Hope you had a nice time away :)H
Um. Wasn't the economic crunch during that time on a bit more of a global scale? That was Bush's fault, too?Heather, As I said previously, it's not just Bush's fault. It's been 30 years of Conservative policy. That includes Clinton. I also think Obama is too beholding to the economic power.Hayden asked,Do you suggest America not honor its commitment to veterans?No, not at all. Many of the denizens of this here blog are frightened to death of Socialism. The VA is totally socialistic. I'm guessing, but Mustang may be a recipient of either Tricare or the VA health care. IF he is, he may hate it. BUT, the VA consistently, at least since the early 90's, ranks higher in customer satisfaction, has lower mortality rates and costs much less than private insurance.It's socialism people seem to like. Same with Medicare. And Social Security. Those are contracts, too. I actually deplore what the leftists have done to this country since 1900.Really? Getting us through the Great Depression, caused by unregulated big business, winning 2 world wars, a cold war and creating the greatest economic and military superpower the world has ever seen. Those bastard leftists.Have our children become better educated? Not according to data indicating that the US ranks close to the bottom in math and science when compared to other industrialized nations.You mean those nations that all have universal health care, a generous safety net, low cost or free higher education? I'm not sure you made the point you wanted to.I don’t believe in big government simply because more government equates to less individual liberty. Insipid, vacuous statement. Do you think a Canadian, An Australian, German or Brit are any less free than you? I know for sure none of them has had to file for bankruptcy, had their home foreclosed on, or worse, because they or someone in their family got sick.
Sam Huntington,One word, Plutocracy.I'm sure you'll be very happy.
I'm Heather and meant to address Craig's apparent insistence on pounding his point about "the right" not being perfect.No, Heather, that's not my point at all. The current manifestation of "the right" is downright destructive. Even I know, no one's perfect.(Oh dear & kind 'Wise One,' how 'bout start an individual blog?)Thank you, Susannah for using my new sobrique. I've thought about it but I'm too lazy. I'm a liberal, right. Actually, I'm spending too much time doing this but I'm on a mission to correct the internet. I will be around much less from now on. Don't tell me you won't miss me. I've bumped up traffic here, I think.Looks likes youse guys will get your wish this Tuesday. At least the House. Now, pay attention to what they do.
I am thinking Mrs. Craig is joking with us. Of the ten richest people in the Congress, six are democrats. Plutocracy? Mrs. Craig, you do not think George Soros’ money is running most of your socialist centers? Why don’t we restore America to the people who love their country, and then other people who prefer European socialism can just move to Europe? I think a free market system is best. There is no shame being rich through hard work and taking risks. I do not see any shame in being a capitalist. Entrepreneurial spirit has good rewards, but yes, it is a risk. I do not think Mrs. Craig is a liberal at all. I think she is far worse than that. You move to Cuba and good luck.
Heather,As I said previously, it's not just Bush's fault. It's been 30 years of Conservative policy. That includes Clinton. I also think Obama is too beholding to the economic power.But there's a difference between "conservative policy" and just plain BAD policy, regardless of who has pushed it through. And there are plenty of politicians whose loyalties have been purchased. meant to address Craig's apparent insistence on pounding his point about "the right" not being perfect.No, Heather, that's not my point at all. The current manifestation of "the right" is downright destructive. Even I know, no one's perfect.If that's not your point, then why do so many of your comments angle that direction? There are a lot of (conservatives, and)Republicans who are fed up with their Republican reps not accurately representing their values and concerns. That doesn't mean liberal leftism is the solution.H
First. Louis, I'm a dude, baby. I have this funny feeling you are referring to me as Mrs. Craig to disparage me. I don't care but I wonder how the women here feel about using gender to denigrate someone. Girls are dumb, huh Louis.I own my own construction business and my wife owns a retail store. So I'm no stranger to entrepreneurship, capitalism and risk. My concern is the concentration of wealth. Falling demand due to falling wages and short sighted drive by corporatists for maximum profit. The unregulated financial sector that gambles with our savings and investments and lose, only to have us bail them out.I think it's a bigger threat to our security than, Al Qaida, Iran and N. Korea, combined. And yes, both Dems and Repubs are being corrupted by big money but the Dems are the only ones even timidly addressing the problem.This is a really good examination of the problem. It's a 10 part series on wealth distribution by Timothy Noah at Slate. He's left of center but the articles are well researched and even handed. It has challenged some of my assumptions about causes. It may not change anyone's mind but there's a lot of info there and well worth the read.The United States of Inequality
Hi to all, & welcome to my new friends Hayden & Sam!alright...everyone go VOTE!! -- except you, Craig ;) --VOTE!
Post a Comment