Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAmerica Needs A New New Deal
The Bush administration has proposed the most expensive government spending plan in American history, allocating as much as $700 billion to a Wall Street bailout. The proposal was attacked by members of both parties, who immediately began negotiations to find an alternative. The Bush plan was not only a political blunder; it was also a complete repudiation of the administration's own economic policies. It could not be justified by any of the core beliefs governing free enterprise and the free market.
As with the decision to invade Iraq, the administration sought to commit the federal government to massive spending without a clear exit strategy. Most important, it drew upon the New Deal's legacy of government intervention in the marketplace -- without any of the New Deal's fundamental concern for the well-being of ordinary Americans.
This year happens to be the 75th anniversary of the New Deal, a revolution in governmental philosophy that began with the Emergency Banking Act of 1933. That first piece of New Deal legislation was a hurried response to the worst banking crisis in U.S. history -- until now.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined the problem clearly in his first fireside chat, a week after taking office. "We had a bad banking situation," Roosevelt said. "Some of our bankers had shown themselves either incompetent or dishonest in the handling of people's funds. They had used the money entrusted to them in speculations and unwise loans . . . It was the government's job to straighten out this situation and do it as quickly as possible."
President Roosevelt's banking plan ended the panic. But it did much more than that. In Roosevelt's words, it "reorganized, simplified, and made more fair and just our monetary system."
Compare those aims and that achievement with what the Bush administration proposed. Having championed the free market, small government and deregulation for years, the administration asked taxpayers to assume the costs of Wall Street's poor investments -- while allowing Wall Street to hold on to the good ones.
The size and scale of the Bush administration's proposal are mind-boggling. During the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration spent about $250 billion (in today's dollars) on public-works projects, building about 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings, 72,000 schools and 80,000 bridges. The entire cost of all the New Deal programs (in today's dollars) was about $500 billion. The secretary of the Treasury now wants to spend perhaps twice that amount, simply to prevent a financial collapse.
Of course, something must be done -- and quickly. "Government intervention is not only warranted," President George W. Bush said last week. "It is essential." With those nine words, he contradicted the governing philosophy of the Republican Party for the past 30 years.
According to President Roosevelt, the New Deal had three fundamental aims: relief, reform and reconstruction. On Wednesday night, President Bush described his far more expensive but far less inclusive spending plan as merely a "rescue effort." Mr. Bush's proposal -- to hand over $700 billion to Wall Street banks without any Congressional oversight, without any means to prevent conflicts of interest, or without any measures to help ordinary Americans -- was disgraceful.
What we really need is a new New Deal: a systematic approach to the financial and economic problems of the U.S.
Firstly, we need relief for ordinary Americans. At the moment, four million households are behind on their mortgage payments and facing foreclosure. Some estimates suggest that an additional two million may face eviction next year.
On Wednesday in this newspaper, Sen. Hillary Clinton called for a revival of the Home Owner's Loan Corporation (HOLC). Organized in the early months of the New Deal, the HOLC avoided widespread foreclosures by purchasing troubled mortgages from banks and then reissuing them with more favorable terms. It proved a tremendous success -- for homeowners, taxpayers and banks.
A new HOLC should be created immediately, and with the power to keep people in their homes.
As winter approaches, millions of families will need help keeping those homes warm. During the past year, the cost of heating oil has increased about 30%. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is now trying to cut funding for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. Instead of cutting, the federal government should more than double the current budget of $2.6 billion. That is awfully small change on Wall Street these days.
Second, we need reform. In recent years, one federal regulatory agency after another has been handed over to the industries they were created to regulate. It should come as no surprise that during the Bush administration the U. S. has witnessed the largest recall of contaminated beef in its history, thousands of deaths from unsafe prescription drugs, and one of our worst financial meltdowns.
Advocates of the free market must confront the fact that both the Great Depression and the current financial chaos were preceded by years of laissez-faire economic policies. Strictly enforced regulations not only protect consumers, they protect companies that behave ethically from those that don't. The sale of tainted baby food in China demonstrates, once again, that when industries are allowed to police themselves, there's absolutely no limit on what they'll do for money.
Third, we need reconstruction, not only of America's physical infrastructure, but also of its society. Today close to 50 million Americans lack health insurance. About 40% of the nation's adult population is facing medical debts, or having difficulty paying medical bills. A universal health-care system would help American families, while cutting the nation's long-term health-care costs. And a large-scale federal investment in renewable energy and public-works projects would build the foundation for a strong 21st century economy.
Contrary to the myth of the free market, direct government intervention has played a central role throughout American economic history, subsidizing the growth of the railroad, automobile, aerospace and computer industries, among others. It will take well-planned government investment to break our dependence on foreign oil and create millions of new Green jobs.
The events of the past month have proven, beyond any doubt, that the federal government must actively address America's great social and economic problems. That necessity was recognized by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the 1930s -- and by his cousin, President Theodore Roosevelt, a generation earlier.
The opposing view, promoted by President Bush until recently, is now as bankrupt as one of our leading investment banks. A Wall Street bailout plan that relies upon the mechanisms of the New Deal, while betraying its underlying spirit, should be rejected. Federal relief should not be aimed at the top and somehow expected to trickle-down.
A new New Deal wouldn't require another alphabet soup of federal agencies, micromanaging every aspect of the economy. It would simply ensure that federal spending is driven by the needs of every American. Anything less than this -- any proposal that rewards those who created the problem and penalizes those who can least afford it -- is a raw deal.
94 Comments so far
Show AllThe New Deal turned the US into a world power, establishing policies that created a quality of life envied by the world. The destruction of the New Deal since the Reagan administration has created the disaster we have today.
The New Deal worked. It transformed the US into a world leader, not by deadly force, but by establishing policies and programs that dramatically reduced economic disparities, opening doors to opportunity, enabling millions of Americans to work their way out of poverty. It put human values above corporate greed. We seem to have lost our ability to understand how we are all connected, and how the our treatment of one segment of the population impacts the rest (for example, ending welfare for the poor has been central to suppressing wages, wiping out workers' rights and protections, and crushing unions. Welfare "reform" has been central to the fall of the middle class).
The very survival of the US (other than as a dictatorship) will require restoring the concept of "the common good" to the public discussion, to government, and to our policies.
DHFabian
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Albert Einstein
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
The system and the culture that embraced the system is now so completely rotten to the core that no amount of bail out is going to save it from itself. Whether we as a nation want to admit it to ourselves "we the people" have arrived at or perhaps been lead to the same essential conditon as our greatest cultural icon Elvis Presley. Or more accurately the Elvis Presley of the end. The fat burnt out, addicted and sick Elvis Presley. Look around America we're all fat, sick and as addicted to the vices of cheap thrills, cheap money and cheap possessions as the so called King was to his own indolences. Sorry we have it comming to us. We've had it comming to us for a very long time. Its surprising it took so long to catch up with us. But we haven't seen anything yet. Good luck neighbor!
What we lost was our courage, but there's something else to consider as well. When government became rotted-out in the past, people rose up and fought back. This was reported in the news media daily, and that had a powerful and encouraging impact on the population as a whole. Some are fighting back today, but the media won't cover it. Nearly all news of dissent has been censored out of the media. As a result, ordinary people feel demoralized, not understanding why NO ONE is fighting back (when, in fact, they are). Heavy-handed interference with the media began with the Reagan administration, the media determines (it does not reflect) the public's perceptions. The media today is portraying us as spoiled,passive, lazy,over-indulged and clearly in need of discipline from the political/corporate powers. If you repeat something often enough, the public will believe it.
DHFabian
Alan MacDonald
Hell no! America doesn't need another weak-kneed 'new deal', to "save capitalism from itself" a second time ---- capitalism is fatally flawed by the corporate financial Empire that controls it.
What American needs is to excise and throw out Empire for the destructive cancer that it is! ---- which is exactly what our founding fathers knew.
What America needs to do is to free constructive capitalism from the clutches of corporatist Empire --- and to make it work for 'we the people' under the direction of our democratic choice, not destruction for the Empire's greed and abuse.
During the Great Depression, FDR "saved capitalism from itself" ---- once is enough!
FDR "saved capitalism from itself" because he didn't know any better. He did not know that capitalism has a flaw so big that it can not be saved unless it is fundamentally changed --- just as a cancer patient can not be saved unless the cancer can be fundamentally changed, so that its 'destructive' (as opposed to constructive) growth stops.
FDR should not feel too bad about not realizing the penultimate 'flaw' in capitalism (that can pervert its growth destructively instead of constructively), because it was also not known by Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, or many others ---- but it was recently understood by Wall Street.
The deadly flaw of capitalism (or its 'market failure', as modern economists say) is "negative externalization of costs".
Wall Street fully understood this fatal 'market failure' of capitalism --- and instead of avoiding it, Wall Street 'gamed' this known market failure for its gain and our loss.
The proof that Wall Street fully understood the catastrophic potential of this 'market failure' of 'negative externality' cost displacement is contained in the following February 2007 article about deep research by three Wall Street CORPORATIONS; Citi, Lehman, UBS:
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2237.html
The following paragraphs of the article make it very clear that these Wall Street pros fully knew that the 'market failure' of negative externalization costs was massive, widespread, potentially catastrophic to society and the markets ---- and yet they choose to keep on playing (and even expanding) their own destructive, but profitable 'game'.
"The UBS and Lehman Brothers reports concur that climate change represents a classic market failure where company valuations neglect to take into account negative externalizations--in this case, predominantly the emission of carbon dioxide CO2, the primary greenhouse gas (GHG)."
"Therefore, free markets underestimate the future costs to society that would arise if the climate experienced a drastic transformation: a result which many scientists now predict will happen if there is no change to influence free market outcomes," it continues."
"If climate change, one of the most studied environmental phenomena, represents a market failure, one can only wonder to what degree the legion of lesser-studied environmental and social externalities are not being priced into corporate valuations."
These corporations (and others on the financial side of the 'corporatist Empire' that controls our global political economy behind the facade of their two-party 'Vichy' government) knowingly decided to do what CORPORATIONS ALWAYS DO when faced with any decision about societal vs. private issues of right and wrong, profit and loss ---- they 'gamed' the system in favor of private (corporate) gain and public loss!
Now this entire "financial crisis" that Bush, Paulson, McCain, Obama, Dodd, and everyone else in our two-party 'Vichy' charade of a government is yelling and rushing to 'bailout' is caused by nothing other than the modern financial extension of the dirty olf trick of 'gaming' the market failure of 'negative externalization' from the industrial level --- and "taking their game one level up" to the financial Ponzi crooks.
I explained how it works and would inevitably lead to a collapse in this Jan 2008 Alternet post to a great Chalmers Johnson article on 'Empire' --- which BTW is the singualr malovent actor against democracy in all of this:
http://www.alternet.org/story/74620/
"Mirroring the cheating of industrial corporations which used the well known
market failure of negative externality cost displacement to dump pollutants
like cigarette smoke in their customers' lungs, these new financial cheaters expanded the negative externality dumping scam to include the more sophisticated financial negative externalities of CDOs, SIVs, credit swaps, and other 'debt bombs' which they dumped in our country's financial lungs."
In summary, we are not just facing a 'financial crisis' requiring a 'bailout' --- what we are facing is one word: Empire.
A 'corporatist financial Empire' now controls all of the economic sphere of our indivisible political economy (our whole society, if you will), and that Empire that same Empire already controls the two-party 'Vichy' facade of crooked politicians --- but now the Empire is frantically trying to expand its control to 'lockdown' control of the political sphere because they are scared shitless that the American people will use the last vestages of our 'voting rights' to overthrow their Empire and install 'democracy' throughout our indivisible political economy --- as the original genius of the American Revolution intended democracy to prevail over BOTH the political and economic spheres of self-governance when they kicked out the political AND economic tyranny of the British EMPIRE.
This is not about 'bailout' --- it's about democracy vs. Empire
What are we to make of Bush's proposal?
A) That he wanted this money in order to prevent the economy from sinking during his watch? That he was attempting to be practical in order to save his legacy?
Or B) He hoped to hand out a huge government bailout to his pals. At the expense of the taxpayer, the latter being damned. Allowing Paulson to dole out the money could be quite beneficial to corporate interests.
Or C) Such a huge bailout would add enormously to the national debt, creating another "shock" which would undermine the federal government. And make future government spending onerous, eliminating large "socialist" federal programs. Such as saving the insurance industry, for example, from a national healthcare plan.
Or D) All of the above?
Or E) Something I haven't thought of.......
ARDEE: INDEED THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE USA IS A SOCIALIST-UNITED THIRD PARTY AND ALTERNATIVE FRONT TO THE CAPITALIST DICTORSHIP OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY FOR DECADES !!
I will try to go to http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/
thanxxxx
Beware of Thomas More. He is a capitalist infiltrated in this site which is a socialist, leftist site. Read at the way he is attacking Hugo Chavez (without any scientific evidence of course). Socialism decreased poverty in Venezuela from 80% to 30% (there is scientific evidence for that). But of course we all know that capitalists lie, and are addicted to lies.
I rest my case :-)
Let others know about People's Revolution! Spread the word... the more who know the truth, the greater the force against the capitalist system! Resistance forever!
......................./´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............
STICK UP YOUR MIDDLE FINGER TO US IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALIST OPPRESSION!
very cool!
What USA needs is a socialist united party
Hello all: What USA needs is a socialist united party, that would work as a vehicle in which the masses, the majority of americans who would like a real social, democratic system in USA for workers, by workers and in favor of workers and people, would have an organization in which to caste their votes every 4 years. However there is a catch-22 with this solution. The catch-22 problem is that the USA corporate fascist system thru the media and its other evil things it has, will not permit a United Socialist Democratic party. The media apparatus would denounce it as a cult or an evil organization, and would spread dirty propaganda against it, just like it did and it has done many times against Ron Paul, Howard Dean and now against Obama.
But We first need: An educational-propaganda campaign
In order to create a third united socialist party we would first of all need an educational campaign in order to spread knowledge to the masses about the evils of capitalism, fascism and imperialism and the only alternative to it is participative democratic socialism. The American masses are real confused and ignorant about how the world works. Trying to wake up the masses from their delirium would pose us as a threat. I read the biography of Hugo Chavez and that's how he started his political program in order to change Venezuela. He first tried to wake up Venezuelan poors about the evils of neoliberalism, he talked about the importance of teaching the masses about capitalism vs. socialism. And then when Venezuelan's poors learned about capitalism, Chavez started to do his thing (To overthrow the fascist capitalist venezuela system)
And here in USA we gotta do the same thing that Chavez did, teach the US poor for some months or years what is capitalism and what is socialism before trying to do form any political party. Almost nobody in USA have taught the masses the evils of neoliberalism, not even Kucinich, Ron Paul or any other candidate. Ron Paul was one of the few candidates who talked about the US constitution as the guide and example for America and nobody listened to him, because he needed more time to teach the US voters about US constitution, and how capitalism is antagonic to laws, and constitutions. So before starting a third party, i suggest to spend some months or years trying to teach the poor people of America about the evils of capitalism and the wonders of a participative democratic socialist system, a people's system
You mean we too could have a wildly sucessful socialist society like....where was that socialist society that was sucessful? Chavez...30%+ inflation and an economy crashing in spite of the oil revenue? Boy, what a guy.
CIA world-fact sheet says that USA has 280 Millions Internet users (What the f*ck is going on with the US internet users? Why don't those 280 million internet users of USA log into http://www.democracynow.org or http://www.commondreams.org or http://www.votenader.org http://www.informationclearinghouse.info http://www.socialistworker.org http://www.wsws.org http://www.globalresearch.ca and many other alternative news sites, to learn the fact that democrats and republicans are corrup oligarchic parties of big business, and not democratic social parties with working class program for all americans
"This sucker is going down.." says George Bush referring to Wall Street. Previously he referred to our economy as a "house of cards." Like a dead clock that's right two times a day, Bush scored gold with these observations.
Time to regroup, become a multipolar player on the world stage and start being a caring Scandinavian type country.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Nice sentiments but she is likely to get a New Deal out of an Obama Presidency as she is to get one out of a McCain presidency, meaning it ain't going to happen.
And here is why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPbJY2rs0QI
What Katrina and her cronies are never going to get folks:
"The Trouble With Our State"
By Daniel Berrigan
The trouble with our state
was not civil disobedience
which in any case was hesitant and rare.
Civil disobedience was rare as kidney stone
No, rarer; it was disappearing like immigrant's disease.
You've heard of a war on cancer?
There is no war like the plague of media
There is no war like routine
There is no war like 3 square meals
There is no war like a prevailing wind.
It flows softly; whispers
don't rock the boat!
The sails obey, the ship of state rolls on.
The trouble with our state
--we learned only afterward
when the dead resembled the living who resembled the dead
and civil virtue shone like paint on tin
and tin citizens and tin soldiers marched to the common whip
--our trouble
the trouble with our state
with our state of soul
our state of siege--
was
Civil
Obedience.
To Those Who Have Gone Home Tired by WD Earhartd
After the streets fall silent
After the bruises and the tear-gassed eyes are healed
After the concensus has returned
After the memories of Kent and My Lai and Hiroshima
lose their power
and their connections with each other
and the sweaters labeled Made in Taiwan
After the last American dies in Canada
and the last Korean in prison
and the last Indian at Pine Ridge
After the last whale is emptied from the sea
and the last leopard emptied from its skin
and the last drop of blood refined by Exxon
After the last iron door clangs shut
behind the last conscience
and the last loaf of bread is hammered into bullets
and the bullets
scattered among the hungry
What answers will you find
What armor will protect you
when your children ask you
Why?
Yep, the trolls are out in force! How's that Republican money, I bet it spends pretty nice.
NADER takes Republican dollars to advance his campaign, because Republicans know he cannot win and is only good for one thing, taking leftist votes away from Democrats.
NADER SUPPORTERS advance this cause by trolling progressive sites and arguing that the best way to support progressive causes is to vote NADER, despite knowing that the opposite effect will happen.
A vote for NADER is a vote for REPUBLICANS. They know it. They pay good money to help make it happen.
So which of you here are getting paid to work for REPUBLICANS and which of you are whoring yourselves for free?
NADER is a SELLOUT WORKING FOR REPUBLICANS. He takes REPUBLICAN MONEY. He is BOUGHT. And if you work to support him, you too are BOUGHT by REPUBLICAN BLOOD MONEY. How much are you getting paid? If it's nothing, and you're just duped, you should call up the RNC and demand your 40 pieces of silver.
And afterwards, you can go hang.
.
Ralph Nader:
We just accept money from individuals, as long as it’s legal. We don’t take money from PACs (Political Action Committees). We don’t take money from commercial interests, which have a quid pro quo, like the oil companies, auto companies and insurance banks. We don’t do that. If people want to contribute, no matter who they are, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Green, whatever… you want to contribute? Welcome. There’s no quid pro quo (a Latin term meaning “something for something”). They see where we stand and they see our issues on the table. You want to contribute? We’re grateful.
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
.
RALPH NADER (I)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Farouk Systems $9,200
Falconwood Corp $6,600
University of Massachusetts $4,650
Financial West Group $4,600
GH Palmer Assoc $4,600
Kayline Enterprises $4,600
Genentech Inc $4,600
Jigsaw Production $4,600
Twin Tier Pathology Assoc $4,600
Seabree Partners Mgt $4,600
Luigino's Inc $4,600
Alpha Garment $4,600
Rizk Construction $4,600
American Church $4,570
Ann Taylor Corp $4,300
University of South Carolina $4,300
James Odling $4,100
Scsra $4,100
Proven Managment $3,800
Lynx Investment Advisory $3,300
(opensecrets.org)
This is a comment on the New Deal, and the proposal in the article for a "new New Deal. This central theme in the article is important and deserves focused responses. I focus here on New Deal farm programs.
New Deal (1930s) farm programs were not subsidy programs. Price floors were established using nonrecourse loans and supply management. Instead of paying out big money in compensatory subsidies, the government made money on interest on the loans. This has been estimated at $13 million, 1938-1952 I think, as referenced in Crisis By Design by Mark Ritchie, online at IATP.
So, instead of subsidies, the government managed the markets, within a range, with price floors on the bottom, and price ceilings on the top backed up with grain reserves. The purpose, says Daryll E. Ray at the University of Tennessee's APAC in various online articles, was to correct for the lack of "price responsiveness" on both supply and demand sides. Under the free market, farm commodities have usually been low, usually below cost. With these programs America didn't export these commodities at a loss.
In exactly this way, this was a New Deal economic stimulus package. It went through banking committees, in the Steagall Amendment for parity. It was very different to recent "economic stimulus," where the government gives us borrowed money to be paid back in higher taxes later, with interest, (basically gives us a credit card with a certain limit, ie. $1,200.
New deal farm programs were progressively weakened and eliminated. Price floors were lowered more and more under corporate influence as documented in the recent Common Dreams Willie Nelson article, "It's About America." Starting in 1953 price floors were lowered. After falling way low, they were ended in 1996 under Freedom to Farm (in Gingrich, Contract on America and signed after being vetoed by Clinton). Lead Democrats opposed Freedom to Farm until 2002 when they switched to a greened up Freedom to Farm.
Note that in the discussion on the 2007/2008 farm bill, progressives often falsely claimed that New Deal programs were commodity subsidy programs, and that they still exist. See 2007 2008 farm bill articles at Common Dreams, and look for my comments there. The proof against this is in an Economic Research "Table -- Direct Government payments by program, United States, 1933-95," (or GP3395us.xls.xla linked at http:// www.ers. usda.gov/ data/FarmIncome /finfidmuxls.htm #payments, (but remove the spaces in the link). Look for the commodity subsidy columns for feedgrains, wheat, rice, and cotton. Among these cotton did have subsidies five years, (1934-1939, but not 1940-1963) and the others did not have commodity subsidies 1933-1960.
The United States lost money on farm exports 1981-2006 (farmers were drastically underpaid on exports and government compensatory subsidies are not export income into the U.S.!) Hundreds of billions. The beneficiaries are agribusiness commodity buyers like Ralston Purina, where Ag Secretary Earl Butz (featured in "Corn King") worked. They get below cost gains in the billions (See Tufts University's Timothy Wise on 2.5 billion (each) in gains for Tyson and Smithfield 1997-2005. Cargill and ADM probably got gains of multibillions yearly. Meanwhile the U.S. lost money on exports. If you figure for years back to 1953 (not just 1981-2006), and instead of a standard of zero (no losses) use fair-trade, living-wage prices set well above zero, and consider lost advantages from economic multipliers, and consider our often dominating influence on world prices (dumping, destroying poor LDC ag marketing, fostering poverty) and put it in 2008 dollars, you very easily get into the multi trillions. All from free trade, (or freer trade, when we had price floors, but ever lower ones).
The National Family Farm Coalition is calling for what is a New Deal along these lines: price floors with supply management and no need for commodity subsidies, and price ceilings with grain reserves to moderate price spikes. See also George Naylor, et al, "Legacy of Crisis" and "Farm Bill Basics" at In Motion Magazine, (online) for more on the history of this. Other progressives should join them on the commodity title for the next farm bill. Subsidy caps and green subsidies don't address these New Deal issues at all. I'm not saying subsidies are never needed, (ie for sustainable agriculture) for example to make up for the harm that has been done.
By the way, By the 1930s, U.S. agriculture had had a depression for many years, throughout much of the 1920s. Today for some of the main farm commodities (some main ones in government programs) farmers (and the U.S. as an exporter) lost money in the market big time almost every year for a quarter century 1981-2006 (not counting compensatory government subsidies). Since fall 2006 prices have gone up and farmers are not in a depression. Corn hit $7 per bushel here one day in early July 2008. Though it then fell by 1/3 (which is a huge reversal) and then rose some and fell some, it is still higher than the 1981-2006 average of a little over $2 per bushel. But costs are racing up as the heavily concentrated input complex (ie. Monsanto, Dupont) use their power to take the profits. Note: Stewart Smith: shares of domestic food dollar, 1997: Marketing (output complex, ie. Cargill, ADM, Smithfield, Tyson) 73%, Input complex 20%, farm share, 8%. Versus 1933: Market 57%; Input 16%; Farm 27%.
America doesn't need a new, new deal it needs its people to get off their butts and phone or write your elected officials and tell them what the VOTERS WANT. That is all it takes is a million of Americans to tell these people support this bail out and you are NOT working in Washington.
PUT PEOPLE TO WORK; FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING AND RAISE THE VALUE ON HOMES... here's how:
What we NEED to do is to stimulate the economy by spending public money to do "green remodeling" (adding insulation and other energy saving features/updates to buildings and also installing site-appropriate alternative energy generation: solar, wind). Such measures applied to both public and private property would:
- get money in the hands of skilled construction laborers who are out of work;
- reduce energy consumption and thus CO2 production as well as lower the utility bills at a time when energy prices are rising exponentially; and finally
- raise the value of residential and commercial real estate.
This is a WIN-WIN-WIN situation all around. This has been done in a very limited fashion via tax credits in the 2005 Energy Bill-- a number of which have been renewed or are currently slated to be renewed-- but we MUST increase the funding level dramatically. If the bottom line is that we need to inject significant public money into the economy in order to divert any of several different great depression-like scenarios, let us do it in a way that maximizes the benefits.
Why is no one talking about a financial transactions tax (aka Tobin tax)?
Such a very low fee could easily raise $150b annually while being almost imperceptible in trade.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Let's elect Obama and support Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org to convince him that progressive policies make sense and resonate with people's ultimate desire for peace, sustainability, and responsible economics.
I fear that you do not convince people that their positions are wrong by voting for those positions.....Why on earth should a President Obama be more responsive to you when his psotions got him elected in the first place? This myth that one can vote for a corporatist because "we" can change him later is the same concept that sees women marrying morons because they can certainly make him better once married...Divorce rates over 50%!
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Yes the differences between Barack Obama are not great, but given that If John McCain wins there won't be no more elections. or, if there are, they'll be completely staged like they are in occupied Iraq. Why? Because a President McCain meant it when he sang 'bomb, bomb Iran', that's why. Which means that the Fascist takeover of America will have been completed. Oh, but we'll resist and overcome? Yeh, like in Germany when Hitler was named Chancellor, after which the resistance lasted maybe a few months. This, despite the fact that progressives in Germany way back then were much more powerful and organized than we progressives are here in America. What about a third party candidate? Why? So one can say 'Since I couldn't tell eenie from meenie, I voted my conscience?' True, at a later date, if McCain wins, one's 'I voted my conscience' memory might be comforting should one find oneself locked up in a Blackwater concenration camp. No help whatsoever right now, though, towards preventing a McCain win en route to that abyss. And if Obama wins, what sort of world? It'll be up to us & yes we can.
Did anyone see Pelosi last night, Fri.. giving her pep talk to the media? To me, she looked cornered, afraid to speak, in fact a nervous tremor in her voice as she spoke. Her eyes revealing a deep doubt of her words. I expected the poor thing to collapse. I thought Bernie Sanders was an ethical seeker of truth. But he offered no improvement to the conversation beyond pre WH blathering on 'the deal.' I turned it off.
G. W. Bush will be well-remembered for the current crisis and the money grab, all of the side dramas: Guantanamo and torture, greatest number (1,500,000 +) collateral civilian murders in the history of mankind, "disappearing" billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan (conscious acts of hand-in-the-till sleight-of-hand), Katrina's aftermath, a record number of "signing statements" (as if history would excuse those in their abundance), overwriting of broad elements of the United States' Constitution including most of the Bill of Rights, introducing the SS Troop type massive numbers of mercinary forces who are each paid thousands of dollars a month more than soldiers to murder, rape, and pillage in the name of the United States, building a massive spy program and network which includes phone, mail, and internet intrusions and creating a pipeline of neocon fantasy "intelligence" to replace legitimate and accurate information channels, creation of the "Homeland (Nazi Germany?) Security" "family" which far and away build greater layers of incompetant bureaucracy such as FEMA and numerous other bastardizations of "Democracy" which in neocon view turns out to be "democracy" which respects no one, the creation of layers of uninterested and incompetant workers of neo-con persuasion who contradict any concerns they should have for the citizens of the United States. And the current Federal Reserve leadership, to mention a couple more.
I hate to say, but i think we can formulate a better response to this economic crisis and bailout than this.
Proponents of the bail out argue that a letting corporations just collapse would be detrimental for our economy, jobs, etc.
where in the article is there a response to this claim? an alternative?
-is a bailout a bad idea? ineffective? waste of money? will it actually save people their jobs? homes? because proponents are arguing that if lending freezes up in the banking sector, the economy will hault significantly.
-Should the bailout be done under different terms?
Why is invoking the New Deal an important comparison?
i think the most interesting part of the article is about the HOLC - would there be a bottom-up solution to this problem (e.g. helping owners of mortgages rather than the bank owners of paper debt)
but repeating the left's agenda on health care, regulation, education, etc. is not an adequate response to the specifics of this problem. we need to get deep in the ugly center of this problem, explore its complexities, come up with a solution
Is there an economic crisis? There is no economic crisis, there is a minor financial blip on the screen where a few companies whose executives were paid squillions to know better have over-extended themselves (or perhaps might not make record profits again this quarter).
The financial sector is not the economy. If the economy is screwed (and I believe it is pretty much, although not irrevocably) it has been screwed for years, and throwing another trillion at it now will simply get you more of the same.
When you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
jon doe,
A seasoned response, quickly, for you are capable of research as the rest of us, and I suspect the flinging of a hook.
The only admitted claim of not funding this is less credit for corporations to conduct business including manufacturing, the building industry, etc. Not to mention every homeowners' favorite, the real estate industry and their 6%. Yes and the sleaze who started the thing.
According to several articles here on CD, history is neck deep in proofs that bailouts cause inflation and depressions whereas New Deal slate wiping with domestic infrastructure, regulation and equitable taxation, among others, developed a strong middle class to replace an ineffective, practically, non-existent one.
The rest you can do. This IS the deep and ugly. You can put it together like this no money and even restricting the current supply, with low interest to the gov.(2%) means no credit to finance corporate production, distribution etc. in those areas where it is the SOP, farmers, even corporate ones will find it difficult to fund new crops. The list goes on. State governments will experience decline in revenue. Unemployment will increase as will inflation. But this is dependent on not only the truth of the'need' but also the pressure on Wall St. to commit to its responsibility and some hard work for less recognition, maybe in leiu of jail time/fines.
Adios.
We CAN get the leaders we need when we stop supporting the duopoly. It's time to vote for alternative parties and candidates, period.
To illustrate a point, let's say that the ordinary Amerikan citizen is a desperate hitchhiker stranded in the desert by a broken-down car.
It's a given that the Republican passer-by will zoom right past, or maybe even swerve to flatten the hitchiker into road kill just to clean out the hitchiker's car and pockets.
But the Democratic passer-by will do something teenage Big Brothers often do when forced to pick up Little Brothers-- although, bless his heart, my Big Brother never did this to me.
It's that thing where just as the would-be passenger walks up and reaches for the door handle, the driver eases the car a few feet forward and stops; the passenger rushes up to grab the handle and get in, and the driver does the same thing, moving just out of reach, then stops... ad infinitum.
A "pragmatic" hitchhiker who's been stuck in the desert with dangerous Republicans screeching by will keep it up for MILES, in the belief that at least the Democrat will give him/her a RIDE. And more likely than not, drop dead from heat stroke and exhaustion-- grateful to the end for meeting up with a Good Samaritan.
Can't argue with that.
Ahhh, Katrina,
The over-glitzy "abortion" lady who wears short skirts and big boots all the time ! She's a dumbo to support Obama who has no intention of being any different from McSame. She deserves a TOUGH SPANKING for supporting the sellout Obama !
And Mr. Schlosser,
SHAME ON HIM ! And his film and nailing NAFTA was doing so great ! I can't believe he's surrendering his support to the sellout Obama and not giving Nader a look !
Obama people,
I sent an email to the Obama campaign to tell them that I am stunned that he does not seem to be conversant with ideas that are absolutely crucial to this country getting back on track - see links below.
I do not want to even hear the word "change" unless the candidate is going to tell the truth about the situation AND ABSOLUTELY REPUDIATE, AND VOW TO END, THE IMPERIAL PROJECT OF THE NEOCONS. If he does not, I will vote for Mckinney.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch.html
http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3067364950234559926
.
Nader can win....... The voters will decide.
Nader will change things.
Nader is our only hope.
Nader is the only choice.
Fight the Two-party system.
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
He lost in 1996
He lost in 2000
He lost in 2004
Can you help Ralph lose again?
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… McCain’ll be glad you did and so will Palin…
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
VOTE NADER 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
single payer national health insurance:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
No to nuclear power, solar energy first:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Open up the Presidential debates:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a carbon pollution tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Impeach Bush/Cheney:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
Work to end corporate personhood:
Nader: On the table; Obama/McCain: Off the table
.
O.K.! Nannie. O.K.! jeez...I will, O.K.? Just stop!!:)
Glad you liked it. Thanks for the approval...
Vote Nader/Gonzalez 2008
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Nader can't win.
Nader CAN win but in all probablility, WON'T.
The reason is simple. There's one party. I call them the Duopolist Party. this party has a great scam going - pretending that the two candidates are in opposition and that one is sooooo much worse than the other. The scam has been a huge success. As Howard Zinn noted this year, the Republican party is only slightly further to the right of Obama. Not a major difference, just slightly. So the Duopolists win either way! Great plan. Both candidates are far right. And because they and their handlers set the parameters of the entire political conversation, we can only sit back and watch the two batten down the national conversation: terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. No substantial differences. When it comes time to vote, voters I hang out with will vote for the one who made eye contact. Hey, don't complain. In these times, that's a big deal to people. I've been hearing about it all day. "Obama made eye contact!" They were thrilled, even though both candidates walk in lockstep with the neo-cons who are, right before our eyes, this very moment, stealing every last vestige of our democracy.
Nader (or McKinney) probably won't win - nothing is absolutely certain - but I will vote my heart out this election. And I hope the rest of you do too. It may be the last chance we get. It's not about my one vote, it's about democracy, our collective voice. Telling the truth at the ballot box rather than giving in to the Duopolists' fear tactics.
Nader and McKinney voters have almost identical platforms so together they could get 20%, maybe more. You choose: the Duopolist Party or Ralph Nader
There is no more depressing idea than not voting your conscience, your knowing with open eyes and mind that if you vote otherwise is subscribing to the scrabbling, false hope, of desperate, beaten free people who chain themselves to the repetition of violence, fear, intimidation and poverty of thought.
To vote other than your conscience is capitulation to mob think, to throw yourself off the lemming cliff of overpopulation of empty ideas.
I'll continue my rejection of cycling dead ideas.
you can't think
you can't poop---oh, wait, I take it back. That's all you do.
Please, madcow, as one whose intellect is on display in every post, and whose humor is evident as well, please tell me how you reconcile the shifting stance of your chosen candidate and the history of complicity of your chosen party with your love of country?
I would guess that the status quo appalls you as much as it does me, at least I hope that you do not favor torture and endless war, that you wish to rid our government of the undue influence of the corporate "personhood" that leads us to what is best for profit and not what is best for America or the world.....So why is it, I wonder, that you do not see, as do an increasing number of voters, that neither political party works for us or for this best interests of our country?
Of course no third party candidate can win, as the deck is certainly stacked against such an occurance. But that is not the only reason to cast a ballot, madcow, one doesnt vote for he who is expected to win, one should vote for that candidate who best expresses one's own vision for this nation. Other wise how do we advance that vision?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
It's taken decades, if not centuries to get into the mess we're in. Deep change for the better will not happen over-night or with one election, absent a violent revolution.
I truly believe that progressive ideals WILL be advanced with the election of Obama. Look at what happened to the Green party in the last 8 years---it's nearly extinct. No congress members, no money, no influence. I see this as a result of having a hard-right administration in the White House. If we were finishing up the 8th year of a Gore administration, the Greens would be in ascendancy. All those left leaning Democrats would be asking for MORE progress instead of just wanting to get Bush/Cheney/Palin out. Don't you agree that the greens will have to appeal to some of the 42 million registered Democrats to be successful?
"one should vote for that candidate who best expresses one's own vision for this nation. Other wise how do we advance that vision?"
I can't argue with that. Most people in this nation don't question the status quo. A people, brainwashed into believing the myth of American exceptionality. Right now, there's a chance to move things in a slightly different direction---left. I'll take that over moving further down the road to fascism.
Yes he can. It's just that you brain DAMAGED Obama worshippers don't allow real progressives/liberals a chance. Obama blew it in last nights debate. And when he votes yes on the bailout package, he gonna lose ALL 50 STATES. Say bye-bye to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I'll take Ralph Nader or even Cynthia Mckinney over either Obama or Mccain anyday !
If this bailout goes through I wouldn't be so sure of that.
If it goes through...We all might be looking for grubs to eat, while the internet withers from lack of use.
Instead of suggesting FDR, how about Eugene Debs? Upton Sinclair? Huey Long? "Share Our Wealth" anyone? Do you care about redistributing wealth or saving capitalism from change? Remember that the Federal Reserve was basically controlled by Morgan and Rockefeller.
"Long proposed a new progressive tax code designed to limit the size of personal fortunes. The new tax code would tax the first million dollars of income at the existing rates. The second million dollars would be taxed at 1%. The third million at 2%; the fourth million at 4%; the fifth million at 8%; the sixth million at 16%; the seventh million at 32%; the eighth million at 64%; and the remainder at 100%"
That's what we need (either inflation adjusted or not).
The authors, when comparing FDR's bailout figures to today's, neglected to factor in the number of people in the US today. I don't know the numbers, but without looking I would guess it would have to be at least five times as many, if not ten or more. Big difference, and the US and the world are not the same place.
I agree Another New Deal is required, but at the moment we are at the end of a game of Monopoly that has gone on far too long already; the losers have had it up to the back teeth, and now the winners, finding no-one has any money left, want a handout from the bank to keep the game going for another circuit of the board.
U.S. population 1930 123,202,624
2000 281,421,906
U.S. population increased less than 2.3 times between 1930 and 2000.
Barack Obama Takes The Lead In Resolving This Economic Crisis & We'll Have Our New Deal
"Take the lead by doing what?"
"By demanding that we the people be a party to these negotiations."
"But if the public is brought into the decision making process, what sort of world?"
"It'll be up to us."
Wow !
The Presidential debate last night was so riveting that I found myself changing channels to watch the WWF Friday night wrestling smackdown as a viable option to absurd political theatre.
And with the biggest bailout for financial market crooks in history
(once again a transfer of wealth from the many to the few) floating around the cesspools of Washington, it is amazing that neither the media or the Demos dare to look at McCain's S&L scandal history.
And we still do not have any idea how much criminality is associated with the current "credit crisis" which is bigger and more complex than the old S&L scandal. Etc.
Quotes for our time regarding hero McCain:
“ Those who survive will be the sociopaths who can tell a lie with the most sincere, straight face. You are especially adept at this.”
and:
" John McCain then went back to the drawing board and re-invented himself as "the Straight-Talk Express" and the media gobbled it up. "Tax-Evading-Criminal" doesn't sound as catchy as "Straight-Shooting-War-Hero".
Read on:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-87950
Taken from: www.mccainkeatingfive.com
During the 2000 Republican Presidential Primaries, Slate.com writer Chris Suellentrop wrote an excellent in-depth feature article about John McCain and his role in the Keating Five.
http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/
This is a must read article for every American, especially for anyone who thinks John McCain is a hero.
Two Important things to know before you read the article:
1. John McCain admitted to intentionally filing
false income tax returns to defraud the IRS by not claiming thousands of dollars in gifts McCain and his family received from Charles Keating and Keating's company. Years later, when the IRS noticed Keating's company had written off the gifts to McCain as business expenses, McCain fessed up and admitted filing false returns and made a "donation" to the U.S. Treasury to cover the amount he defrauded American tax payers. (Committing tax fraud is one of the least offensive things John McCain has done over his career, but this article just focuses on his role in the Keating Five, and the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980's-early 1990's). McCain also leaked information about the Keating Five to the press multiple times in an effort to appear above the other Senators in the scandal. A 1989 Phoenix New Times article summed it up best with their title - McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five.
2. John McCain's wife, Cindy McCain, along with her father, made a $359,000 investment in retail property owned by Charles Keating i 1986, a year before John McCain first met with federal regulators on behalf of Keating. Keating was later convicted on 73 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and other crimes. Years later, Cindy McCain sold her investment for $15,000,000.
Etc. Etc.
And:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1760
Faun Otter: McCain's Temper Caused his Keating Five Scandal
And:
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five/1
McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five
The story of "the Keating Five" has become a scandal rivaling Teapot Dome and Watergate
By Tom Fitzpatrick
Published on November 29, 1989
What really struck me about the debate last night was how really similar Obama and McCain were in their positions. The whole "debate" seemed staged, including the little tit-for-tat routine with the soldiers' ID bracelets both McCain and Obama just happened to be wearing. The whole exchange last night was pretty shoddy and definitely boring--and at this stage of the game, embarassing to watch.
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
He lost in 1996
He lost in 2000
He lost in 2004
Can you help Ralph lose again?
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… McCain’ll be glad you did and so will Palin…
Progressives and Democrats Unite! Elect Obama!
Get a seat at the table.
Advance race relations.
Stop the fascists.
Bring back government regulations.
Tax the rich.
Advance diplomacy.
Make the world respect us again.
Invalidate Bush/Cheney.
Stop Palin.
Save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Get a sane Supreme Court.
Save the constitution.
Get your civil liberties back.
Close Guantanamo.
End the Iraq war.
Open government.
Save the unions.
Advance clean energy.
Save a women's right to choose.
Yeah!
Ralph Nader and Cynthia Mckinney will definitely fight for those causes. Even Bob Barr might do some of them. But Obama? He doesn't plan on it. You're just voting for empty bullshit.
September 28, 2008
www.votenader.org
www.officialnaderstore.com
Trevor Lyman is the man who organized the Ron Paul money bombs.
One Lyman money bomb raised $4 million in one day.
Another raised $6 million in one day.
Now, Lyman is at it again.
Lyman wants to hold a third party debate in New York City.
Lyman was inspired by Ron Paul's press conference a couple of weeks ago.
At that press conference, Paul called on his followers to ditch the two major parties and throw their support to one of the independent or third party candidates.
So, we all need to support Lyman's push for an alternative debate now.
If Lyman gets 10,000 pledges by October 8, he and the other sponsors will organize a debate in New York City.
All major candidates -- Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, Obama and McCain will be invited.
Already, with no publicity, Lyman has close to 1,000 pledgers.
So go to thirdpartyticket.com now.
And add your name to the pledge list.
You don't have to say how much you are pledging.
Just add your name.
The Commission on Presidential Debates won't let Ralph debate.
So, let's get behind Trevor Lyman's push now.
Let's crank it up.
And get it done.
Onward to November
The Nader Team
PS: Third partyticket.com is being sponsored by Lyman's group breakthematrix.com, the Chicago-based Free and Equal Elections, and Open Debates.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
no... not swallowing your poison pill sadcow. Obama deserves to lose... as do the rest of "The Party". Obama is NOT the answer. He is part and parcel to every systemic problem that exists within The Party arena.
He is owned... and it is voluntary.
Peddle your falsehood on a corner where people don't think for themselves.
McCain is the ONLY other VIABLE option.
McCain will:
Not give progressives a seat at the table.
Not advance race relations.
Empower the fascists.
Increase government deregulations.
Tax-break the rich.
Harm diplomacy.
Make the world hate us again.
Validate Bush/Cheney.
Empower Palin.
Destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Get an insane Supreme Court.
Destroy the constitution.
Destroy your civil liberties.
Leave Guantanamo open.
Continue the Iraq war.
Close government.
Destroy the unions.
Advance Big Oil.
Repeal a women's right to choose.
You Know it's true!
You're a dumbass. The Democrats have already allowed the Republicans to do all that for the past 8 years. There is nothing left to destroy. It's just that Obama and Mccain will keep it all that way. Obama blew it last night and as soon as he votes yes on the bailout for Wall $treet, he's gonna LOSE ALL 50 STATES IN A SUPER LANDSLIDE DEFEAT ! The Democrats are too cowardly to stand up for anything other than the Republican interests. They must be PUNISHED and THRASHED for the next decade. It is time for a new Progressive/Liberal Independent Party whether you like it or not !
You're wrong about everything. Always. Forever. Hah!
Ok, so I sounded a bit too harsh and hard. Still, if you even bothered to go through your check list of what you fear Mccain will do and look back at the last 8 years of the voting records of the pols in both the House and Senate in addition to the White House, you would have already found out that they were all done already. I would be happy to go through every line with you but I'd need to post way beyond this page.
As for what you expect the Democrats to do when they win the White House, they have no real plans to do any of those and in fact a sizable number of them joined the Republicans to block such actions for the past 8 years.
I know this may sound depressing to you but you better do your homework first and find out who's really standing for you and who isn't. Yeah, we'll get a seat when we can choose a REAL Democrat and not another phony one.
And if Obama loses, it won't be because of race no matter how you try to make it so.
I am as guilty as anyone here of allowing my contempt for noncritical thinking to show in my posts. It stems, I truly believe, from a love of country and a fear of a manipulated and dumbed down electorate voting again and again for a status quo that has given us a new low in governance and a nation that tortures, promotes war and death, and is not at all what it should be.
I understand that, to win converts to the "light" one must use honey instead of vinegar. Yet, when some democratic apologist refuses to learn from our recent history of complicities and cowardice, when those who spurn the phoney campaign of Senator Obama, who won the Democratic primary by calling for an end to war and now seeks the Presidency by calling for an expansion of war, are ridiculed and called irrelevent by someone with the intellectual capacity of a moss covered rock, well, ......
By this I certainly do not mean a poster like madcow, I hasten to add, though I wish he would come into the light...:-)
( of independent and third party politics....).
The campaign of Barack Obama should be a milestone in our nation's history, an entering of the twenty first century and an ending of a lot of very awful history in our nation's past. Instead it is nothing but another cheap dog and pony show where a centrist apologist for corporatism is trotted out in front of a mesmerized and sheep like electorate..sad , really, really sad.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Bravo!
However, Barack Obama isn't going to do this. So we'll have to wait another 8 years...
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Make that 12 years if Palin gets to take over Mccain.
P.S.: A Republican campaigner confessed to me that Mccain actually plans to hand the keys to Palin early next year should he win.
Right. Most campaigners talk with McInsane every day and he confesses his deepest secrets because he's so close to the "little" people. So John justs wants to know what it would be like to take the oath of office? And I had thought it was the repugs that were stupid. The electorate gets what it's collective IQ deserves.
Well I guess if some random blogger says it is so, it must be true.
The United States, formerly the world's greatest manufacturing nation which now no longer produces anything but is a genius at The Big Flim Flam, is in no mood to listen to reality. Our big heroes are John Wayne and Charles Ponzi, which is all one can expect from a country that hasn't so much taken leave of its senses but can't remember where it put them.
The Bush administration has proposed the second most expensive government spending plan in American history - second only to the Second World War.
This transfer of plunder to Wall Street is tied with his transfer of plunder to the Merchants of Death. The destiny our children and ourselves is a mystery now that our nation is Bushrupt.
Yet another piece that doesn't even mention the fact that we're bankrupt and, instead of offering BETTER ways to spend money WE DON'T HAVE, doesn't even suggest that, like, maybe we should take a deep breathe and a tough look at our budget and seize the moment to cut, shift and re-prioritize.
First, we need "rescue" funds. Okay - Pentagon, we're taking $200 billion back from the $1 trillion we just handed ya. Our economy needs "protecting," you're the Defense Dept., so do your job and help protect it.
Not only do we want the $200 billion - close 500 military bases and all the golf courses, then sell or lease the assets. That's good for another $200 billion easy.
Then cancel as many "private" contracts as possible and give the work back to the troops who you're bringing back from the 500 closed bases. There's another $100 billion.
Meanwhile, collect all hidden taxes - off-shore, etc - and close all loopholes and shelters. Another $100 billion, no sweat.
Oil companies - time to pay what you owe in royalties. Let's lowball it at $100 billion.
Now that's $700 billion without even blinking, okay? No new taxpayer pain whatsoever, and we show the world we're adults who at least try to balance spending with collection.
Meanwhile, we unleash the bean counters upon the rest of the budget for the greatest slash and burn and re-prioritizing in our history!
A good slogan we could follow would be something like "We want our money back!"
Lets go get it back from everyone who's gotten rich from these scams and the wars. The FBI has excellent financial experts who can track that money if we the people tell them too. Go find the money and get it back. Tax the people who've gotten rich from these scams.
And yes, at the very least, we need to cut spending on the Defense Dept, the Homeland Security Dept, and the off-budget wars drastically.
There's probably a trillion dollars a year that we are spending there that we could use in much better ways. Even just not borrowing the money to spend it would be a big help.
Stop spending on nuclear weapons.
Stop spending on star wars.
Stop spending on fancy fighters and overpriced air-tankers we don't need.
And that's just a starting place.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I don't think America and the future president Obama will change things as fundamentally as we would like to think (and as much as we really need). The reason I say this is that things are still not as bad as they were in the Great Depression--the last time there was REAL reform in this country.
Allthough the current economy is nothing to be happy about, it was far worse in the early 30's when FDR was swept into office. Then we had an official unemployment rate of 25% (unofficially probably closer to 40%) and those with jobs had sharply cut wages. The present housing crisis, while bad, can't compare to back then; when in New York alone 5000 families a week were being evicted. When banks were failing by the thousands. My dad was a farmer and he remembers that corn was selling for - 5 cents a bushel--you took corn to the local elevator and you had to pay them five cents to take it.
Americans are so wrapped-up in the myth of Yankee self-reliance that only something as drastic as the Great Depression makes us look at real change.
Another critical factor present back in the 30's but not present today--a strong sense of solidarity in the laboring classes. It was the fear of the laboring classes in this country finally uniting and taking over the truly frightened the ruling economic elite into allowing fundamental reforms to save themselves.
Even with all these factors on his side, FDR still faced tremendous opposition to his reforms; and even an attempted military coup to drive him from office.
Even if Obama, Nader, or anyone other than Mccain is in office, I don't think he or the American people--under the present situation--are going to truly tackle the fundamental problems that need to be tackled for true reform to take place. As for Mccain, he's just more of the same.
Some interesting thinking there and some real facts.
The working class now has no one to unify them and few to trust. The Union's are in the pocket of business and was selling the American worker out over the last 10 years, especially replacing them with illegals. Who are thery supposed to trust?
No matter who it is, there is goinig to be a lack of money to do all of their "projects"
"The Union's are in the pocket of business and was selling the American worker out over the last 10 years, especially replacing them with illegals."
I can recall the way the AFL-CIO went bust. Back in the 1990s, the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), the "centrist" wing of the Democratic Party known for being anti-union wanted to do what Raygun didn't do to the last of these unions. The DLC slowly but steadily tickled the AFL-CIO to death by convincing John Sweeney, head of the AFL-CIO, to out-CEO the corporate CEOs. As a result, union dues were misused and redirected towards making the CEO of the AFL-CIO, Sweeney himself, richie rich. Even as the organization underwent major trouble, he would still show up and he looked like a rich fat cat. Unions are not what they used to be.
actually, the ideas are okay -- but the likelihood of any political process
leading to the desired outcome is so remote as to be absurd
I agree that most attempts to influence the political process are ineffective. I do not think that most progressives have sufficient skills these days, nor did they in the 1960s. I recommend basic grassroots organizing skills (community organizing!), as taught by the National Training and Information Center in Chicago (see Shel Trapp, Dynamics of Organizing and Basics of Organizing) and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. There are other good ones also. I also recommend the writings of Roger Fisher et al at the Harvard Negotiation Project. Anyone who agrees with dubs_dingleberries here should start with Fisher's book Beyond Machiavelli. I strongly believe that most activists (people taking action, not just getting informed) and most progressives who read stuff at this site, have no idea that such approaches exist. I do criticize Fisher et al, however, for not focusing on their method as a group approach, as grassroots organizing. Without knowing that there are ways that have worked repeatedly against strong corporate power, people will also choose to be less informed, to see and know less. Nationwide, I believe, great masses of people don't want to see, for example, the financial situation or Iraq, since they feel powerless to respond. This need not be so, but generally Progressives, for example, in my direct experience, have a lot of homework to do.
katrina, you have nice ideas
now go back to sipping the latte, grooming the cat, all that other stuff
people with a safe-deposit box full of treasury bill notes do on a saturday
thanks
“I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.”
[George W. Bush]
To the editors of CD,
It is readily apparent that legitimate, researched and noted articles here are being critiqued by idiots. Could you at least screen some of it for real content as opposed to unsupported asinine statements?
[Editor's note: Will do.]
DogLeg did not specify the "idiot" part or the "screen" part. Judging from the Hank Fur and madcow comments (as data examples) there are probably a lot of posters here who do NOT think that there are generally a lot of idiotic comments posted in response to "legitimate, researched and noted articles." We easily see, however, that the idiot part is self apparent. Simple Jay walking idiocy abounds, on many sides of the discussion. And by the way, there are many categories of idiocy other than "advocating violence." I mean to limit this claim, for the sake of discussion, to the kind of idiocy that people and all sides would agree to, not the one sided type falsely claimed for DogLeg here by Hank Fur, "comments ... you agree with." Ok, one example: believing that ad hominem attacks are logical reasoning, not logical fallacies.
If there is anyone stupid enough to want to debate the idiot part with the rest of us, (if there's anyone wanting to defend generally the most idiotic of the comments posted at this site, against our view,) I'm glad to take up the challenge with specifics, you know, for some amusement. I love watching Jay Walking and "Are you smarter than a 5th grader.
I generously applaud comments, including humor, to try to "screen" through the mush. We need a lot more of that. I'll try to do better. And note here that DogLeg did not send the "screen" part to "authorities," but rather said here: "will do." And DogLeg's post was an example of posting comments on the other side of it, (the anti idiocy side) which, of course, is not censorship. No, no idiots (I don't mean to slam you too here, except when the shoe fits, I mean all of this mass of idiots here). No one is saying you don't have the right to post. We're just saying we're going to challenge you instead of ignore your naivete, which is what I see here. You apparently don't know that we see so many comments (Oh my, which ones could they be, the naive ask?!?) as sheer, laughable (except that we deeply value education) idiocy.
Ok, for those who can't easily follow the intellectual trail I've blazed here: I haven't used many specifics on the idiocy charge. I've even used ad hominems that don't prove anything, just get people riled up to comment back with extensive posts of their best intellectual productions. Idiocy: it's way, way too self evident (again, not limiting this to any one side of the issues). Sooooo, to follow my trail: that's my bait for folks to come forth claiming there's no or little idiocy here! Hungry? Mmmmmm good!
Finally Hankfur, I wish you had more tolerance for people smarter than fifth graders (or even as smart as) and I wish you didn't try to be so negative in response to attacks on idiots (I mean legitimate attacks like Dogleg here, not just ad hominems).
Ok, Waynes World: "Discuss." And hey, how about mentioning the original article along the way, since that's what many people smarter than 5th graders come here for. (I say that for the many who may not have ever thought about that, but who instead just want to shoot off their own hot air, in about any direction, for what clearly appears to be self aggrandizement, and who are too naive to imagine how many others of us, who are generally too polite to say so, see them: as naive.)
Ok, now I'll look for more posts by Hankfur to see if he writes anything that I consider to be "more enlightened than others, more informed," than, say the comment here about idiots by DogLeg.
P.S. I look forward to comments from Hank Fur and madcow on my comments on the actual article. Give me your best shot. But remember, I can comment back, and it will be public, albeit you're safely totally anonymous and could change to a new anonymous handle, (unless, of course, you force common dreams to censor you and remove yourself from public debate).
Thank you for your support. However, my enlightenment is not the issue. The word idiot is an accepted ad hominem attack when truth, or fact, describe, not the congenital, but the capable lost by self definition and the inability to reflect on their thoughts. Hey, I'm not pure. And to those who note this, my apologies to any transgression of speech without responsibility.
What comments do you want to censor, DogLeg? Certainly not the ones you agree with. Which comments here do you think were written by idiots? Just curious.
Don't you know censorship is a really, really bad idea?
This is one place where we can come and speak/write what's on our minds. Some of us are more enlightened than others, more informed - I'm assuming you put yourself in the former category - but we all deserve to speak freely, without fear of censorship. No one here is advocating violence, so have a little tolerance for heaven's sake.
I consider your comments in favor of censorship to be worse than any other comment I've seen here today. But I won't advocate that CD takes you off the page.
Nicely stated Hank.
I only see two comments earlier than this one. Neither looks objectionable to me nor deserves this. So, were there other comments here that now have been deleted? Are comments that the editors don't like being deleted from CD? Note that this request is not because the comments were obscene or offensive. Just that because they apparently dared to differ from what Katrina and 'dogleg' think. And, either this was aimed at completely reasonable comments or it was aimed at comments that apparently were deleted because they disagreed with dogleg and katrina.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
CD never deletes rightwing lunatic troll posts of Snow Wolf, jakenewton, "truthteller", "real world", etc ...
The economic situation in this country is absolutely scary.
We all have differing opinions of who is at fault.
The bottom line is how can we take back our news media, government, and financial and structrural infrastructures so we all can help create a society of "We the People"?
How can we actually get our so-called representatives to represent "US" in a way that benefits all of "US" without the greed of their personal agendas?
How can we be proud again to be called Americans and to believe in this great nation?
Thank you.
I think we need to start fighting on local and state levels before we can defeat them at the federal level. In addition, we the people need to unite and counter-infiltrate the media, campuses, and even the big business corporations if we're going to rescue America even if we're stuck with McNAZI in the White House.