Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Now Is the Time to Resist Wall Street's Shock Doctrine
I wrote The Shock Doctrine in the hopes that it would make us all better prepared for the next big shock. Well, that shock has certainly arrived, along with gloves-off attempts to use it to push through radical pro-corporate policies (which of course will further enrich the very players who created the market crisis in the first place...).
The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.
It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the right's ability to use this crisis -- created by deregulation and privatization -- to demand more of the same. Don't forget that Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future, is still riding the wave of success from its offshore drilling campaign, "Drill Here, Drill Now!" Just four months ago, offshore drilling was not even on the political radar and now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed supportive legislation. Gingrich is holding an event this Saturday, September 27 that will be broadcast on satellite television to shore up public support for these controversial policies.
What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus."
We have seen this many times before, in this country and around the world. But here's the thing: these opportunistic tactics can only work if we let them. They work when we respond to crisis by regressing, wanting to believe in "strong leaders" -- even if they are the same strong leaders who used the September 11 attacks to push through the Patriot Act and launch the illegal war in Iraq.
So let's be absolutely clear: there are no saviors who are going to look out for us in this crisis. Certainly not Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the companies that will benefit most from his proposed bailout (which is actually a stick up). The only hope of preventing another dose of shock politics is loud, organized grassroots pressure on all political parties: they have to know right now that after seven years of Bush, Americans are becoming shock resistant.
- Posted in
298 Comments so far
Show AllJust in time for Bush/Cheney to Make the Humongous Payoff!
The numbers are too big for most of us to comprehend.
Bush/Cheney and their compliant Congress are paying off American mega-banks in the amount of one trillion dollars, and "trillion" is an easy little word to say.
$1,000,000,000,000.00
Try writing that on a check! Seriously, try it! I bet you thought you could squeeze in all those zeros if you started really small. Now try it again! Get a sharper pencil or a finer point pen...
$1,000,000,000,000.00
It cost $650,000,000 to build the Mall of America, and we're giving 1,500 Malls of America to the banks! 30 Malls of America for every state, including Alaska, and when you finish fitting 30 Malls of America into Alaska, some very small towns like Wasilla will have their very own mega-mall.
And it's all happening just in time for the out-going Bush/Cheney administration and their compliant Congress to see it through. What a beautiful coincidence!
Six weeks from now Barack Obama will be elected President of the United States, and he may even be elected by such a large margin that Republicans can't steal the election. Would Barack Obama be as quick to endorse a trillion-dollar pay off for the mega-banks? Nobody knows.
So the time is now, and there's barely enough time left for Bush/Cheney to get the job done.
You can't just haul a trillion dollars out of the Treasury and hand it to the banks, because there isn't a trillion dollars in the United States Treasury, and there isn't even much real money left in the banks.
Before you can pay off the banks, you have to create the money, out of thin air, out of nothing, out of the future. This is fiat currency with a vengeance, and like all other fiat currency it's based on trust in the governmentment that issues it.
It's a trillion dollars of faith-based currency, and who better to create it than a couple of Christian statesmen like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney!
So the bottom has fallen out of financial derivatives just in time for Bush/Cheney to arrange for the biggest pay-off in the history of the world, and if you see anything beyond a coincidence in any of it, you're probably just another conspiracy-theorist in a tin-foil hat.
Jacob Freeze
Oh, Obama sill not only endorse it (watch for his Senate vote), he will cut off the social programs that the middle class ( and poor) so desperately need.
You are so depressed that change for the better is uncomfortable for you
I am not "depressed" . I am angry. If you are not, youre not paying atteniotn or have drunk the Kool-Aid.
What is this better CHANGE you are so certain of??
I find comments like this presumptuous and off base.
Joe
.
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/nader_predicted_wall_street_me...
Nader Predicted Wall Street Meltdown
By The Nader/Gonzalez Campaign
Posted on September 17, 2008
Eight years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader correctly predicted that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were on track to follow the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and 90s into a big financial heap of trouble. Nobody listened, and taxpayers are now at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street is being shaken to its foundation. American International Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by assets, is now teetering on the brink of ruin after suffering losses of $18 billion in the past three quarters, largely due to its sub prime mortgage exposure.
"Nader Rips Mae and Mac," declared the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 16, 2000. "Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which he called 'poster children for corporate welfare.'"
This year Nader, who is also running for president as an independent, is getting credit for his prescience.
"Give one presidential candidate credit for identifying the problem and getting the policy right - and doing so before the twin government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into the tank in mid-July," wrote Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator on Aug. 1. Dubose went on to quote Nader's June 15, 2000 Congressional testimony about HR 3703, a bill that would have reigned in some of the most dangerous tendencies of GSE's, had it passed.
In a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, Nader also criticized the exorbitant salary of GSE executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert Levin and Timothy Howard, and noted that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security because of the grave moral hazard created by accounting manipulations they sanctioned that benefited their personal wealth, with no penalty for being caught.
"As you continue to investigate the Fannie Mae accounting debacle, we are writing to urge you to seek civil sanctions, including disgorgement, from senior executives who profited directly from the misconduct at Fannie Mae, and that you urge the Department of Justice to give careful consideration to criminal prosecution of these individuals," wrote Nader.
Candidate Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and a start to the aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.
In his prepared remarks for New York Times editors in its Washington Bureau, Nader stated: "Given the contrast between the 'free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street."
Nader added, "What we need to do now is find a just way to deal with the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and make sure that this level of financial market manipulation does not happen again."
He elaborated a 10-point plan to cool off the financial markets meltdown:
1. No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
2. No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
3. No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives.
4. No bailouts without public hearings.
5. Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
6. Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.
7. Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
8. Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.
9. Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
10. Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism.
.
Nannie, as wonderful a guy as Nader is, he's not going to win, and so voting for him is a waste. Yes, voting your conscience is a waste, unless you're in a state where your protest vote won't matter, like California.
By the way, if you want to refer to a lengthy article, just post a link. I can't speak for everyone, but I usually just skip over the posts where it's an obvious cut-and-paste job.
Here, here. On both points.
CtrlC&V not so cool. Summarizing the article and providing the link is the way to go.
Voting your conscience is never a waste. In fact, it's too many people failing to vote their consciences for too long that got us in the mess we are in now.
Fleecing What’s Left of the Treasury
by Chris Hedges
Truth Dig/Common Dreams
John McCain and Barack Obama know, after all, who funds their campaigns. The financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama and $19.6 million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the financial industry has come around to collect. Two of the biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have been holding meetings with McCain and Obama's economic advisers. They are working with the campaigns to protect the unregulated power of financial industries and at the same time to shift bad debt to taxpayers. John McCain and Barack Obama know, after all, who funds their campaigns. The financial industry has given $22.5 million in the current election cycle to Obama and $19.6 million to McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And the financial industry has come around to collect. Two of the biggest financial groups in Washington, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Mortgage Bankers Association, have been holding meetings with McCain and Obama's economic advisers. They are working with the campaigns to protect the unregulated power of financial industries and at the same time to shift bad debt to taxpayers.
drop in the bucket... Wall Street reportedly paid out nearly $25 billion in bonuses last year and in this spectacular performance year of 2008... nearly $40 billion... and it ain't over yet.
The working class would be very happy to get that "drop in the bucket"!!!!
Where's the crisis? It's bullshit...a new 9/11...a FALSE FLAG......
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-105a.pdf
And add to the above, Paulson wants complete power, unregulated control, no oversight and complete amnesty from any criminal dealings.
What a deal for the average American.
The Bush/Cheney criminal gang, of which Paulson is a member, has to be the most reprehensible collection of thieves and murderers on the face of the planet. Anyone who still trusts any of these miscreants has to be nuckin' futs.
Just wondering: might the ultimate shock doctrine be that because of the current financial crisis we have to put the election on hold until it is sorted out? Kind of strange that they knew about this a long time ago and all of a sudden it is panic time right before the election and one wonders,if this could be the October surprise.
The power went out in parts of Ohio, again yesterday. (still 35,000 without power, urban schools are closed, etc.)
It did cross my mind that there could be selective "outages" in certain voting areas.
But, hell, if Obama is going to get TOTALLY in bed with the GOP--it may not matter at all.
It's only September, we have at least another month for more surprises!
The legal definition of treason should now include these kinds of financial crimes. Almost the entire executive branch, plus most of the congress, should be taken out, put up against a wall and executed by firing squad . . . after the same thing is done to The Greasy Thumbs of Wall Street.
It is sickening watching these Corporate Welfare Queens Crack Whores crawling to Congress begging for another $700 BILLION to get their next fix.
why dont they get off their fat asses and get REAL JOBS???
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Quite so.
Joe
"This is coded language. On the surface, it's intended to sound benign, like he's merely an "efficiency guy" who's going to protect taxpayers by "cutting out the fat" and "eliminating unnecessary & wasteful spending." What it really means, though, is exactly what Naomi alluded to: privatizing social security, lowering corporate taxes, & cutting social programs such as Medicaid & Medicare. That's what's coming next, regardless of who wins the November election. And regardless of who wins, one area where there will NOT be any spending cuts is military spending. That will increase."
Where'd you get your de-coder ring? A box of crackerjacks?
You amaze me RichM.
Ass clown. Bush has cut social welfare programs so much, Obama could increase it by 1/3 and not catch yup to 90s levels.
Obama dropping social welfare programs (an possibly leaving the tax cuts) is the last straw on the last straw.
If he does this , and people stil vote for him, then they should form their own "neo-libheral" party , and head for Bolivia to join the CIA.
"Ass clown" KD? That's nice.
"Obama dropping social welfare programs (an possibly leaving the tax cuts) is the last straw on the last straw.
If he does this , and people stil vote for him,"
First of all, I've seen no evidence that he made any such proposal. Though RichM is trying to spin Obama's comments to that effect.
Secondly, he can't do anything until he gets elected. So lets try not to string him up yet.
The link is above. wsws.org
Also at HuffPo.
We'll never really know until he gets in office. I wish there was a place to lay bets with you people about what Obama will do about tax cuts, health care, taxes. I'd be rich.
What Obama actually said about Paulson (in response to a direct question about keeping him on a Treasury Secretary)"
"Sen. OBAMA: I would certainly want to make sure that Paulson was involved in the transition. That doesn't necessarily mean that he'd end up being the secretary Treasury, but I think it's important for us to make sure that those who are currently in charge when it comes to the financial crisis and defense and intelligence, that they are deeply involved in the transition process."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21text-obama.html
Leave it to a troll to falsely characterize anything to try to make a dishonest point.
q
I noticed you didn't include this quote from the same NYT story:
"But Obama advisers say it is more likely that he would pick someone new. "
~madcow~
Technically speaking that is not a "quote from the...story".
You are quoting it, but in the article it is not a qoute, just an unattributed -and therefore possibly unreliable- paraphrase.
Frankly, it feels to me as if it was added late, perhaps designed to counteract Obama's "tricky...juggl(ing) balls" line and rescue the piece from becoming a boring "all the important people agree already so you're SOL if you don't" story. The NYT has been running quite a few of those lately.
If we could drop all the squabbling invective for a moment, I think we'd see that the important issue here is that Obama supports (or feels obliged to profess support) the transformation of the Office of Treasury Secretary and this latest anti-Constitutional power grab by the Executive.
Sure, he has a few conditions, just as the rest of the Dem Party leadership does, but he seems to have no basic or fundamental argument with the idea -as evidenced by his polite compliments of Paulson and his future involvement.
It is just like the FISA "reform". Obama and the Dems treat gigantic and unholy violations of the basic character of Government in this Republic as if they were of no matter at all and instead focus on minor points and political gestures.
And once again they fail to truly act as the Opposition.
Even though it is now quite clear that the People would support almost ANY opposition to all this madness. Want proof? Even McCain must give lip service to opposition. He's (at least rhetorically) running AGAINST the President from his own party!
Given all of this, it is difficult for many of us to avoid the conclusion that Obama and the Dems WANT an Imperial Presidency. That far from opposing this unjust and treasonous usurpation of the People's Government, they are merely quietly biding their time until they can seize the Throne of Bush for themselves.
The policies of the current President and his supporters in Congress are now undeniably responsible for the collapse of our Economy, the collapse of our Status in the International Community, multiple criminal Wars leading to the death or maiming of tens of thousands of soldiers and uncounted thousands of civilians, and an unprecedented erosion of the People's Rights and Liberties.
For all this the President and the Congress are deeply unpopular with the People.
In a functioning "democratic" system of representative government by Polpular Election, these times would simply SCREAM for strong Opposition! Well-reasoned, well-worded, firmly held, and near total opposition by Obama and the Dems would virtually guaruntee them landslide victory!
So why do they refuse to do this? Why do they continue with their policy of capitulation even as it weakens their chances for success?
One answer is that our "democratic" system has CEASED TO FUNCTION.
It has become a farce, and the Dems are leading the way, hand-in-hand with the Republicans.
Why should we participate in a farce? It will only legitimize it.
Have Fun,
-matti.
Nice post matti.
I have no answer, but some questions.
Do you believe that a good man---someone who sees the travesty we've become, who is capable of empathy, and has a "healthy" world view and our harmful place in it----can get elected president today?
If not, when did it become impossible?
If not, how can we get it back?
Maybe it was never possible, but to my mind Carter came close and made a lot of changes with his human rights campaign.
Respect!
Thanks.
To your questions:
I believe that such a man CAN get elected, I even think it is possible that on a personal level (not tempered by ambition) Barack Obama is such a man. But if I understand you to be asking if I believe a man could get elected by openly campaigning from such a position, then I would say No, but with reservations.
I think my reservations may address your last two questions.
The issue in this case is "today". If we mean by that "this exact World formed by the exact events of the past that got us to where we are now" then no, no one running from the kind of perspective we might support has a chance in hell of attaining true Power. The cases of Kucinich or Paul bears this out from both sides of the true Progressive/Conservative (as opposed to the B.S. Liberal/"Conservative") divide. It is actually a bit stunning that several of these people have been elected to Congress, even as hamstrung as that Body has become.
But if we stretch the meaning of "today" a bit to mean "our general Time, with the possible addition of small changes in recent History" then I would have to answer overwhelmingly YES!
Hell, if the stupid (he says out of love) Greens had spent the last eight years building a real -and nationwide- Party structure and compromised a little on their platform (Do they still want to abolish the Senate? That'll fly when pigs do!) we may have had a real chance of electing a good WOMAN to the Office of President this year!
Instead they wasted two Presidential Elections and four Congressional ones "going for the big bucks" of federal matching money and ballot favoring that comes to any party that achieves 5% of the popular vote in a Presidential race. In order to attempt this they recruited a popular figure who did not really agree with them and is not inclined to compromise (Nader). The result of this blundering gamble has been to not only fail to get that 5%, but also to marginalize the Greens, Nader, Progressive policy, and the very idea of "third parties".
All of which is to say (very long-windedly) that electing a good President is far from "impossible", it would just be bucking the trend.
As for getting this ability "back", the pithy (and kinda harsh) answer is that we merely need to stop being stupid, impatient, cry-babies and stop doing stupid, impatient, cry-baby things.
Of course, all that "pith" conceals an enormous cultural change, as being kind of stupid, way too impatient, and a bit of a cry-baby has become an "American" Way of Life (myself partially included)
But the question remains: "What is to be done?"
I would suggest two paths, seemingly conflicting but actually complimentary.
1. A large-scale and determined movement WITHIN the Democratic Party, uniting several caucuses and individuals of different stamps and creeds. This movement would push the Dems to become a true "big tent" Party of the People. A Party of staunch defenders of the Constitution, of staunch defenders of the working and "middle" classes, of down-to-earth and practical Progressives, and of strong leaders able to speak clearly -but substantively- to the People and to their opponents in Government.
2. The formation of a "big tent" third party. This party would take a long view, with its original goal the formation of a truly national and major (that means money-backed) Party Structure. The foundational core of this party would be the reasonable people -willing to compromise and find agreement with each other- of all of the current minor parties- Greens, Libertarians, etc. For growth this party would reach out to those dissatisfied with the Dems and GOP, especially independents and those millions who abstain from voting in national elections. The sell would be the D's and R's abandonment of Constitutional Principles, their greedy lust for Power at all costs, and their disdain for the Common People -once again focusing on independents that they covet and that 30% of abstainers that they commonly ignore.
-The main tough bit in the formation of such a party, as I see it, would be the name. If we were in Europe it would be simple, they would be the Democratic Socialists or the Social Democrats. But, sadly, we are in "America" and Socialism has a bad name here. I would suggest Constitutional-Progressives might work, but obviously this is all conjectural.
So that's -in part- how I think we can get this possibility back, or obtain it for the first time.
But how to begin these movements? Get the ball rolling toward democracy again?
I don't really know, I'm just a guy who has to get the house clean before my wife gets home from work, y'know?
But I would say all Democrats should begin discussing and organizing for suggestion 1., and all independents, abstainers, Greens, Naderites, Libertarians and others should begin discussing and organizing for suggestion 2.
At least after November 4th, these should become our main priorities, so that by 2012 (or '10? *cross fingers*) we can be cheering our optimistic new Way instead of once again lamenting our hopeless old one.
The only other suggestion I'd have is that these movements need to begin decentralized, but connected. Evolutionary change happens most quickly in small groupings and isolated conditions. So local and State movements have the greatest chance for early success, but with the advent of the Internets they also have the opportunity to be strong allies and supporters of each other.
Long story short (too late!), we gotta lot of work ahead of us and I -for one- am not really sure where to begin other than just kinda "putting it out there".
Have Fun,
-matti.
Well you're a good writer, with good ideas, so don't sell yourself short. I suspect you're more than just "a guy who has to get the house clean".
Thanks for taking the time... your posts are much appreciated.
I'll be studying this one for a while...
One thing that jumps out is how the two paths are complimentary. It seems that if the first is successful, it negates the need of the second---or is the second appealing to the 30% that will simply never join the democratic party because of ingrained bias?
Respect!
I fish for compliments. Its a vice I have.
But to you point:
Basically, yes, the formation of a new "big tent" party would be primarily about attracting the non-voting 30%. But not because I believe that the 30% have a bias against the Dems, but that the Dems have a bias against the 30%.
Maybe the problem is that I numbered the proposals. I didn't really mean for them to be in "order" or anything.
I agree that a reform of the Dems would "negate" the need for a "big tent" third-party, but ONLY if we limit our goals down to something like "not letting the greediest, slimiest bastard roosters run the roost".
I think we can do more. And this "doing more" is how the two proposals become "complimentary".
Because by achieving both a reform for the Dems AND the blossoming of another "big tent" Party we can accomplish two major feats (and these are intended to be in order):
1. Breaking of the de facto "two-party system" and restoring to its original vigor the Federal Constitutional system that we discussed a bit below. This would happen as the proposed third-party would not just bridge the progressive/conservative divide, but also explode the B.S. liberal/"conservative" false polarization. It would be at the same time to the "left" of the current Ds and Rs -in that it would be for genuine social Progress and democratization- AND to the "right" of them -in that it would be truly Conservative, i.e. Constitutional and Cautious. This is one reason why I focus on the whole "big tent" thing, only a broad-philosophical-spectrum Party can acheive the popularity with the Abstainers and the Dissatisfied that it will take to form a truly competitive new Party, and break the Two-Party lock.
2. There is the real possibility in the next several Election cycles of achieving the total destruction and dissolution of the national Republican Party. Call me crazy, but its true! The Majority quite rightly blames them for the worst of our current problems and would, I believe, abandon them for a new party if it was a little more their speed then the Greens or the Libertarians. Remember that the GOP has its share of Dissatisfied too -just look at the Ron Paul campaign. That is the other reason for my focus on the whole "big tent" thing. Third-parties have tended to be either limited-issues oriented or more-radical-than-the-Majors oriented. But now that one of the Majors is -or at least should be- "on the ropes" there is a chance that a new Major could be born, and that it might even replace the most tottering of the old ones.
Basically I would like to keep the national Democratic Party because I believe that its core, meaning the bulk of Democrats -though not their leadership and maybe not their Prez. Candidate- are still good Citizens and good people, and therefore their party is worth saving.
But I would also like to blow the national Republican Party off the face of the Earth, like the Whigs whom they replaced. I would like it to be consigned to History with a black mark forever on its Name.
In achieving both of these things, I would like to avoid a "fall back" into the current situation of two Parties so assured that they will divide the vote between them that they can ignore the will of the People and suck in as much corporate money as possible.
I suggest that a new "big tent" Political Party is needed to envigorate the good Democrats, sweep up the good Republicans, unite those Dissatisfied with both, and finally bring that Abstaining third of the People into the fold.
But for now, we are too close to Nov. 4 and there is too much of immediate import happening to do more than discuss and consider these ideas.
In other words, we have time yet. We have both the Fall and the Winter most likely, all the way through the first 100 days of the (presumably, hopefully) Obama Presidency and the stron Dem Majorities.
So let us use this time to really get ourselves ready. For when the cherry trees begin to blossom in D.C. in the Spring we will need to begin some real change to a system that will be near -or at- total collapse.
Have Fun,
-matti.
P.S. How many times do you think I wrote "big tent" in this post? I'll do it again..."big tent". ;)
matti says, "Hell, if the stupid (he says out of love) Greens had spent the last eight years building a real -and nationwide- Party structure and compromised a little on their platform (Do they still want to abolish the Senate? That'll fly when pigs do!) we may have had a real chance of electing a good WOMAN to the Office of President this year!"
I agree with much of this but there is plenty of stupidity spread around. I am willing to admit that Nader was a mistake, but we originally didn't know it. Also, as I have mentioned in numerous posts, the Greens do a lot of things besides running presidential candidates and anyone who has tried to promote the Green Party knows the incredible and baffling inability to connect with people who agree with and should encourage what we are doing. Nader is right in his "good cop, bad cop" analogy. It keeps people frozen politically and anyone who tries to build a third party knows it is a fact by hard and detailed experience.
What *should* have happened is that the PDA and other progressive Democrats should have registered Green en masse and given the mainstream Dems a huge scare. At that point, the dynamic would have changed and the politically adept progressives could have taken the wheel and done some really creative stuff.
Instead, progressive Democrats wouldn't even talk to us because of Nader 2000 and the chance was lost to change the political paradigm, and here we are wallowing in the corporate swamp once again (although reluctantly for some.) Do you think people will get together now? I wonder.
BTW, the Green Party platform isn't eccentric. It's progressive, it's green.
I really do think that getting hung up on this "party" thing is a source of a lot of our problems.
I disagree that "Nader was a mistake", I think the mistake was in abandoning him. If "progressive Democrats wouldn't even talk to us because of Nader 2000", then they aren't very "progressive", are they? If, instead of denigrating him, they had adopted the positions he took, we'd be farther along in this process.
My point is I don't think it should be about Nader or about the Greens or the Blues (Dems) or the Reds (Reps - that's kind of funny, isn't it, Reps as Reds!) It should be about policy and position. I will vote for a progressive of any color or gender no matter what decal (s)he sports. Time's a'wastin', folks.
A political party is just a tool to get things done. It works as well as we make it work.
I'm not sure who you mean that abandoned Nader. The "progressive" Democrats never were with him. You may have a point about not being *really* "progressive", but their stated positions were much the same as those of Nader and the Green Party, at least the ones that I'm talking about. I talked - or at least tried to talk - to many of them at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento in 2006. They weren't much interested in talking to me, though. (One little frizzy-haired gal actually threw a cup of water at me before I hardly got started. :-) )
In my view Nader was a mistake in that *he* abandoned the party and, hypocritically, kinda, not really didn't abandon it. I got sick of his bullying, frankly.
I consider the party malleable and useful, like a labor union. Policy and position are much more powerful within an organization as long as it doesn't solidify.
"Time's a'wastin', folks." My point exactly.
You want someone good in the oval orifice? Elect the one who functions like a mirror. This mirror will deflect the bad energy back at those who emit it, i.e. those on the right. And it will reflect the good energy back to those who emit it, i.e. those on the left. So the mirror serves to reinforce the idea of karma, and the bad recieve the bulk of its own destructivity and the good receives the bulk of its own productivity. Notice that the current crop of "rulers", the elites are not mirrors, but rather transmitting lenses, passing the just energy from the left to the evil right, and the evil energy from the right to the just left. They are socializing the right, themselves, and capitalizing the left, the people. Both capitalist parties are of the right.
O.k... how 'bout a name?
Just kidding, I like your explanation.
The "Metaphysics of Government", huh?
Very cool.
Uh, Naomi, you forgot the democratic congress in all of this.
None of them are opposing it, and Obama is stumbling all over himself to get on board.
What gives?
Blame republicans as you certainly should, but there is no difference in either party when it comes to this bailout. The dems (and you) can bitch and moan and put on the same old act, but after the dog & pony show, they'll sign on and vote for it.
AP
Bernanke: Recession certain in absence of bailout
or else Depression certain in presence of bailout?
It was fear of a recession that allowed the crummy loans to go on and on in order to prop up "consumer spending". Like you say, we should be looking for a manageable recession in lieu of an eventual super-Depression. Time for America to suck it up, pay it's bills, and channel our efforts in to useful things instead of buying crud we don't need.
p.s. And there's nothing you, me or anyone on this board can do about it.
Nothing.
What, they haven't stolen enough of our money via the "war on terror"?
And my brainwashed sister says "Oh my god, Obama is going to raise taxes and give the money to these welfare mothers who work at Wal-Mart - and he's the Anti-Christ."
It sure is funny what unregulated fascism and continuous propaganda can do.
Your have no idea what you are talking about.
Almost no one here is a GOP or conservative (there are a few)
Obama now says he will have to "delay any of his spending programs" due to the stock mkt/housing ponzi scheme bailout
He is useless now, and should not recieve any progressive votes.
There is no more "welfare" (Clinton saw to that). There is only temp. assistance for pregnant women. Everyone is in workfare, and, Wal-Mart employees only get food stamps and Medicaid because the Am. 'consumer" is too stupid to force them to pay for health care and a living wage like they do in other countries.
Hell, even in China , they have a union.
WHY is Obama putting all of his social welfare programs "on hold"? Why is he wavering about the tax cuts?
Because that is what he is about. He is a centrist, Wall St. Chicago School multi-millionaire.
I quit talking about McBomb and Obama long time ago, and said to myself: It's the system, stupid.
"Obama now says he will have to "delay any of his spending programs" due to the stock mkt/housing ponzi scheme bailout (sic)"
How about substantiating that claim.
q
Why do you say I don't know what I'm talking about? I was merely noting that the so-called "war on terror" is a massive rip-off of taxpayer money. Then I mentioned that my sister is brainwashed due to propaganda. You're the one who can't spell :)
In the exchange between you and KDelphi, we have one of the huge problems we face... in facing THE PROBLEM. Confusion and simple lack of understanding by people who should know better. KDelphi didn't understand at all what you meant, which was clear enough, it seems to me.
THE PROBLEM of course is more or less, in a nutshell, what you alluded to: Fascists run our government and economy, and with no effective regulations to control them--the 'rules' of the game in a democracy, no different really in the economic/financial sector than in the schoolyard...no rules, the bullies rule.
You called it unregulated fascism. Hard to be more clear and succinct than that. And continuous propaganda that brainwashes most people. Again, hard to make it clearer...or to deny that reality. (I have exactly the same situation with family members, including a very dear sister who is as great with her 'little brother' as she is brainwashed, the poor thing.)
So the problem I'm alluding to is that for 'us' progressives who understand the main dynamics and the need for radical change, there are so many who are all over the map with twisted analyses, weird untenable 'solutions'....and just plain inability or unwillingness to understand what it being said and respond with intelligence.
And so someone claiming to understand/believe in the same perspective as you completely misses your obvious points. And comes roaring out with guns blazing, full of self-righteous indignation, battle helmet all askew, firing in all directions at these nasty windmills... And after the barrage, out of breath and and with a determined expression like I remember Beaver, asks: "Did I hit anything?"
Yes, as a matter of fact, you did. The wrong target. You shot one of the solid, experienced fire fighters at a 20-alarm blaze.
KDelphi, read what Bellingtonthecat said. Just relax and read it to understand. If you don't get it, you have a deep problem.
And...you are brainwashed in your simplistic repetition of anti-Obama exaggerations that you picked up from other posters here who obviously impress you with their breezy, knowledgeable-sounding 'analysis'.
I think that kdelphi was responding to someone else, and just pushed the wrong button.
Whew!!! Confusion all around. This feels like a scenario that would inspire one of those great Bob Dylan songs from Hw 61, or Blond on B. "There's so much confusion in here..."
I think you're right but looking at the other posts and the content of Kdelphi's rant, I can't figure out which. At the time, I just assumed, as did Bellingtonthecat, that it referred to post that had been answered.
Kdelphi, I never commented on your spelling; BellingtonTheCat did after your raging attack that he couldn't figure out. So, okay you pressed the wrong button. How was anybody to know? Because frankly, your posts are not very clear and you do repeat what you've picked up on other posts, some of which is shaky, if not altogether silly.
There are some very silly exaggerations about Obama by Naderites and you in particular seem prone to pick them up and run with them; that's what I meant by brainwashed (figuratively, of course) almost like people who watch a lot CNN or whatever all the time and they believe and repeat what they hear. And no, I don't say that for anybody who disagrees with me; I could care less. Yes, I'll admit it was probably too strong a word, but the over-the-top hyperbole about Obama is getting out of hand, and all it can do is prevent progressives from voting for him and hand the gov't to fascists. And Kdelphi...come on, saying that I sounded fascist...???!!
Fascism is the running of gov't by corporate leaders for their profit at the expense of the population. (And related heavy-handed criminal behavior in cahoots, with crooked politicians to maintain a situation detrimental to and detested by the vast majority.) To use that kind of language with me because I pissed you off, that's not reasonable. And I am sorry I missed that you were answering somebody else.
All I said was that you have a real problem if you couldn't undertand what BellingtonTheCat had said. If you knew you answered the wrong post and we didn't know, why the histrionics?
Realistic progressives like myself, Madcow, BellingtonTheCat, etc., don't have any illusions about Obama (or life for that matter), and the last thing we need is to be reminded of the limitations of the Dems in general, and specifically, Obama. But we're realists. The Repugs are now controlled by fascists (no exaggeration, according to Mussolini's simple definition: blending of gov't and corporate power; in other words, the corporate sector basically runs the gov't, as with the administration of Bush/Cheney/Rove). No exaggeration either that McCain will continue exactly the Bush policies and methods.
As bad as are the Dems, they're not fascists. We (realists) simply understand that Obama is a major improvement over Bush/Cheney/Rove, and certainly McCain/Cheney/Rove. And if McCain/Palin/Rove et al win, lots of very real suffering ensues.
It's naive not to understand that this site is crawling with Rove agents pretending to be hard left, and trying to guilt-trip progressives about supporting a supposed war monger (Obama), to skim off progressive votes and direct them to Nader, helping McCain. And of course, it's loaded with Naderites trying to get Obama voters to change to Nader so he can get his precious 5% for the $$$. Which is extremely irresponsible in my opinion, because it could easily give us another 4, 8 years of an administration that Nader has said is the worst in history, much, much worse (of course!) than the Dems.
BTW, if by RA, you mean Rheumatoid Arthritis, truly sorry to hear about that. But your pattern of typos looks to me like you type and run, the way you debate--with a lot of 'energy', and possibly not enough preparation and review. You spell and type most words properly. What would prevent you from a quick read-over to correct typos??? Sorry, but it doesn't really seem to add up.
ctrl-z: "As for spelling errors, complaining about the spelling of others is one of the few absolute proofs of karma." It sounds interesting, possibly witty and with that hit-the-nail-on-the-head quality....but I don't get it. Could you explain? I'm really curious. Karma is such a deep, powerful reality, but I don't quite get the connection here. (Let he that hasn't typoed...type of thing?, because we all make typos? That's why I never complain about misspelled words or typos.)
getreal wrote:
"As for spelling errors, complaining about the spelling of others is one of the few absolute proofs of karma." It sounds interesting, possibly witty and with that hit-the-nail-on-the-head quality....but I don't get it. Could you explain?"
If you complain about the spelling of another poster you will, almost immediately, misspell something in a public post. If that's not proof of karma I don't know what is. :-)