Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen the levees broke in New Orleans, I wrote about the desperate need for a New Deal for the 21st Century – one which would rebuild a crumbling infrastructure, help address glaring income inequality, and repair the damage done by a Bush administration fiercely hostile to the notion that government can serve the public good.
The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis is yet another alarm, alerting us to our skewed priorities and need for a public investment agenda.
As The Nation argues in its forthcoming lead editorial, the neglect of our infrastructure is seen in collapsing bridges and exploding steam pipes, flooded subways, traffic-choked streets and clogged-up ports, electrical power brownouts, corroding drinking water systems, uneven broadband access, and an antiquated air traffic system.
The US Department of Transportation estimated that freight bottlenecks cost the economy $200 billion a year--nearly 1.6 percent of GDP. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that it would cost $151 billion and $390 billion every year over the next 20 years to repair obsolete drinking water and wastewater systems, respectively -- systems that average 50 to 100 years of age. According to the Federal Highway Administration, $131.7 billion and $9.4 billion is needed every year over the next 20 years to repair deficient roads and bridges, respectively. Moreover, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $1.6 trillion over the next five years would be required to alleviate problems with the nation's infrastructure. As John Nichols wrote, "That $1.6 trillion figure sounds like a lot of money, unless it is compared with the anticipated cost of $1 trillion or more for completing George Bush's mission in Iraq."
This is eminently doable, it's a question of political will.
Following the bridge collapse, Senators Christopher Dodd and Chuck Hagel introduced legislation to establish a National Infrastructure Bank that would enable the federal government to help finance infrastructure projects – partly through federal guarantees to state and local governments. Projects would include publicly-owned mass transit systems, roads, bridges, drinking water and wastewater systems, and housing properties. In the House, Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Steven LaTourette introduced The Rebuilding America's Infrastructure Act which would create a low-cost federal financing mechanism to administer zero-interest loans to localities. States choose which projects to fund with the loans according to their specific needs.
The problem is that the Dodd bill, as well-intentioned as it is, would still invest only $60 billion a year – which pales in comparison to the scope of the problem. Similarly, Senator Bernie Sanders good bill to foster green collar jobs – which passed in the House too – also allots only $100 million. A much bolder undertaking is needed.
In a forthcoming paper for the New America Foundation economist (and sometime Nation contributor) James K. Galbraith writes, "Contrary to considerable myth, economic development in America has never been a purely private matter." Galbraith cites the Congress of 1862 and its authorization of land grant universities, homesteading, and the transcontinental railroads. And the New Deal which "laid down much of the public architectural legacy with which we live today."
Galbraith describes attempts in the 1980's to foster higher infrastructure investment on a systematic basis – such as Representatives Lee Hamilton and James Howard's effort to create a Federal Infrastructure Bank "which would have provided funds on a revolving basis to states and cities to support local and regional infrastructure." And late in the Clinton administration similar ideas were discussed "but of course died with the arrival of the Bush government."
In order to address the infrastructure needs – and the transition to a low-carbon emissions society that is required to meet the challenge of global warming – Galbraith calls for a Federal Infrastructure Bank to assist state and local governments with financial resources; and investments in universities and research centers to develop the needed specialists in urban design, environmental engineering, energy economics, transportation systems, carbon sequestration, the management of carbon trading markets and other fields. Galbraith estimates that a new large scale public investment initiative could be undertaken that amounts to new expenditures rising to two percent of GDP over a period of a few years – approximately 290 billion dollars per year in present dollars. (Roughly one-half of the current national security budget.)
In Hometown America, a report based on two years of research by a group of progressive thinkers, the authors write that "for the past 20 to 30 years, major parts of our economy and society have been short-changed – trillions of dollars of investment needed but not made in healthcare, education, energy independence, and a broad range of other essentials. We conclude that serious reforms are needed to make up for these shortfalls and to build a new generation of growth and middle class prosperity."
The report argues that the last great American middle class – created on rising wages, a strong industrial economy, and government programs that expanded public education, increased home ownership and eliminated poverty in old age – has eroded over the last three decades due to globalization, financial liberalization at the expense of middle class prosperity, an increased tax burden on the middle class, and military adventures abroad over public investments at home. The authors call for using "government much like an earlier generation did to create a high-wage and technologically advanced economy with a broad base of middle class jobs."
The report outlines "a new federal revenue sharing and regional decision-making process…."; a National Capital Budget and Development Bank "to finance and oversee the substantial resources that federal, state, and local governments will need to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, education, energy use, and other key areas"; and "reining in an over-reliance on military projection and strengthening economic and diplomatic engagement…."
Specifically, Hometown America calls for investment in the following areas: basic infrastructure – roads, bridges, levees, water systems, electrical grids; a new energy infrastructure for biofuels, hydrogen, solar, and other renewables; the build-out of America's broadband infrastructure; an expanded and advanced air and rail transportation system, including a new Skyways and Rail system to for the American heartland to complement the Interstate Highway system; a new system of federal research centers to push the frontiers of science of technology; and a network of public health clinics, new technology extension centers, and regional art and culture centers. And, as many have pointed out, "For national security, environmental, and economic reasons, the promotion of a renewable energy industry must be the first priority of any new public investment initiative." The Apollo Alliance has provided a blueprint to do just that – with $300 billion invested over the next 10 years, creating 3.3 million jobs, leading to economic growth, more tax revenues, and energy independence.
Citizens need to make it clear to the presidential candidates – and their representatives – that they seek a bold vision to renew our shredded social contract and rebuild our public infrastructure. Otherwise we can expect continued tragedies as we saw last week, and the same path of privilege for the few and treading water for the rest.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Oh what could be done with all that money were it not for that elephant in the room! And more great ideas from Kucinich who holds a whopping 2% in the polls. It sure is frustrating that the leading Democrat will do little to get us out of this war, and will continue with neo-con economic policies that erode the middle class.
I think "Brand-new deal" sounds better than "new new deal".
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 5:59pm
Oh what could be done with all that money were it not for that elephant in the room! And more great ideas from Kucinich who holds a whopping 2% in the polls. It sure is frustrating that the leading Democrat will do little to get us out of this war, and will continue with neo-con economic policies that erode the middle class.
I think "Brand-new deal" sounds better than "new new deal".
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 5:59pm
sorry to submit twice again.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 6:00pm
swinging left.....................
i hope so. these last, what's it been now, 30 years of everyman for him/herself have become ever more cruel to people not fortunate enough to be born on the metaphorical right side of the tracks.
work hard, you say, and you can become anything. well maybe, but i imagine it's a lot harder to achieve your goals (or even have them for that matter) growing up in downtown detroit than in say westchester county.
when a country as small and impoverished as cuba achieves health care stats on par with the world's hypa'powa', you know priorities are skewed.
thanks
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2007 @ 6:00pm
swinging left.....................
When's the last time the pendulum really swung left since the New Deal era?
Maybe after some success with a democrat in the white house and democrat controlled congress we can get more greens and independents into positions of power and really start swinging left.
The right has the power of the purse, the left has labor whose information comes via the right. More people need to vote and take interest in politics.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/08/2007 @ 6:12pm
I've been really busy....a bit late w/another "New Deal"...this one, by David Corn., posted almost 7 hours ago at Corn.com!
David: Congratulations!
August 08, 2007
CQ and DC
CQ (a.k.a. Congressional Quarterly) put out the below press release yesterday:
Veteran Political Editor and Author to Contribute Regular Blog to CQ's New Web Site
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Congressional Quarterly Inc., the nation's premier provider of news, analysis and information on Congress, politics and public policy, today announced it has signed a deal with veteran political editor and writer David Corn to contribute a regular blog to CQ's expanded free-content Web site, which will launch this fall. Corn's blog will be one of several that express a variety of viewpoints and will play an integral role in CQ's broader effort to reach beyond the Beltway.
David Corn is the Washington editor of The Nation, ....currently writes a Web column for The Nation called "Capital Games;" has a blog at http://www.davidcorn.com, which is part of the Pajamas Media network;......
David Corn brings.......
Corn joins Bruce Drake and Peggy Girshman, NPR veterans who will lead the development of CQ's free-content site....
"I am honored to become part of CQ, a Washington journalism tradition long known for excellence, as it expands its Internet presence," said Corn.......
.....And I say farewell to Pajamas--as an affiliated blogger--with nothing but best wishes for the PJMers. (I'm still doing a webcast for the site with conservative writer Richard Miniter.) Moreover, I am pleased that CQ wanted this blog to be part of its soon-to-expand site, which will offer plenty of up-to-minute and substantial coverage of politics and policy.
This site will probably soon go through a redesign as part of this CQ affiliation. Perhaps the comments section will be revived.....I thank all my readers for their past support and hope they and others will join CQand me as we proceed.
Posted by David Corn at 12:05 PM
Posted by Happy at 08/08/2007 @ 6:44pm
"when a country as small and impoverished as cuba achieves health care stats on par with the world's hypa'powa', you know priorities are skewed."
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/08/2007 @ 6:00pm
Well, Frosty, if Cuba's healthcare is on par with US healthcare, why are so many trying to flee?
Posted by ACook at 08/08/2007 @ 8:16pm
"Specifically, Hometown America calls for investment in the following areas: basic infrastructure – roads, bridges, levees, water systems, electrical grids; a new energy infrastructure for biofuels, hydrogen, solar, and other renewables; the build-out of America's broadband infrastructure; an expanded and advanced air and rail transportation system, including a new Skyways and Rail system to for the American heartland to complement the Interstate Highway system; a new system of federal research centers to push the frontiers of science of technology; and a network of public health clinics, new technology extension centers, and regional art and culture centers."
This is yet another attempt by the left to try and squeeze more money out of hard working Americans. As always, what may sound and look good on paper will never come to fruition in reality. And, even if they thought they could pull it off, exactly how much of this "investment" will go towards outsourcing?
All talk and little else....
Posted by ACook at 08/08/2007 @ 8:35pm
Posted by ACOOK 08/08/2007 @ 8:16pm
most cubans have no interest in going anywhere. i imagine that many leave because they have been inspired by american tv with all its inherent images of untold luxury. i saw the same thing in méxico, as many, many people left the countryside, allured by images of "the good life" as seen on tv. unfortunately these dreams rarely come true.
i wonder how many recent cuban immigrants find a better life in the u.s. than the one they left behind in cuba? i doubt gallop will ever do a poll.
don't people emigrate from the u.s.? i believe 10,000 came to canada last year.
i've lived many places, all of which had good and bad aspects to them. however, a good job and decent public services were key to peace and stability in each
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2007 @ 8:38pm
KAT, the feds already have programs to fund infrastructure programs at the state and local level, but generally require a "local match" of 25% or more, along with state funding committment, usually another 25%....
We fought for years to get a half penny local option sales tax for transit projects in Miami, finally got it approved in 2002.....
Consider that a local gas tax initiative, which was NOT approved recently in Minneapolis, is now being revived, now that President Bush made their bridge fall down.......
Posted by davebarlett at 08/08/2007 @ 9:42pm
I wish the move were a little cheaper, I'd be there already
Where do I send the check to help you out?????
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/08/2007 @ 9:53pm
Posted by MADLIB 08/08/2007 @ 9:07pm
learn to swim
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2007 @ 10:03pm
Where do I send the check to help you out?????
Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/08/2007 @ 9:53pm
uh, that's "cheque"--we've got to teach MADLIB how to spell correctly.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/08/2007 @ 10:05pm
"i wonder how many recent cuban immigrants find a better life in the u.s. than the one they left behind in cuba? i doubt gallop will ever do a poll."
Well, if they don't get caught on the open sea by the US Coast Guard, a lot of them will find a better life when they take advantage of the wet foot/dry foot law.
"don't people emigrate from the u.s.? i believe 10,000 came to canada last year."
Yeah, and Canada sent us 19,000 back.
"i've lived many places, all of which had good and bad aspects to them. however, a good job and decent public services were key to peace and stability in each"
Then why are the Europeans still moving here? (Sorry, Frosty, I had to put that one in...you opened the door..)
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/08/2007 @ 8:38pm
Posted by ACook at 08/08/2007 @ 10:25pm
Great ideas....for an America with a budget SURPLUS.
But the next President will have to be a fiscal conservative. As so many here (Left, some Right) have pointed out, we are in hock upto our eyeballs to the Chinese and others buying our debt.
If we don't get down and FAST, that "New New Deal" money will be needed for the soup kitchens and orphanages (the kind the kids used to go to because the parents were broke, not dead).
Get the budget in the black....then you can start dreaming of spending "a trillion here and a trillion there".
And everybody from Hillary to Rudy to Barack to Mitt to even John "I'm Bobby Kennedy re-born" Edwards knows it.
Posted by Mask at 08/08/2007 @ 10:31pm
ZERO,
Something to cheer you up.....it did me good! MyDD got so far left as a Dem activist, he became Right-of-Right Illegally! For money.....imagine that! ------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY KOS CO-AUTHOR FINED $30K FOR UNETHICAL STOCK TOUT
Wed Aug 08 2007 19:12:23 ET
Prominent liberal blogger Jerome Armstrong has agreed to pay nearly $30,000 in fines in a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that Armstrong touted the stock of a software company, without disclosing that he was being paid to do so, the NY TIMES reports.
Armstrong is the co-author of _Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics,_ with Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos. He is also the founder of the Democratic activist site MyDD.com.
Under the agreement, Armstrong neither denies nor admits to the allegations.
"It's good to see the matter finally end," Armstrong said in an e-mail message to the TIMES.
Posted by Happy at 08/08/2007 @ 10:53pm
I love how KVH demands that we should spend money fixing our infrastructure and uses the tragedy of the Minnesota bridge collapse as an example, while completely omitting the fact that the bridge was under repair at the time. Classic.
most cubans have no interest in going anywhere.
Posted by ACOOK 08/08/2007 @ 8:16pm
And you know this from all your Cuban friends, or have you been to Cuba and conducted a study there? If you love using made up facts so much why don't you work for the White House?
Posted by Zeddmen at 08/09/2007 @ 12:10am
Katrina,
This is my final posting on the Nation.
In the Nation there was no denouncement of last Sunday's ridiculous Democrat assisted violation of the fourth amendment. Even the much more corporate NY Times has been severely critical of that pathetic defense of the Constitution.
There was no discussion prior to (or even after as it turns out) of the ill advised criminal contempt of Mier's / Bolten (gee that's going swimmingly well considering the need for DC DOJ assistance huh?). As I repeatedly said a Democrat led congress that was actually interested in truth would have gone with inherent contempt but since I've long since realized that the Democrats are not interested in anything except re-election (and certainly not truth) I at least EXPECT The Nation to be critical when the Democratic Party puts party ahead of Constitution.
The Nation has recently let me down in these areas (and others). The Nation's values are now very different from my own so I must leave you to fester in your own partisan vision of America.
Posted by freedomplease at 08/09/2007 @ 12:22pm
Posted by ZEDDMEN 08/09/2007 @ 12:10am
luv the zed
well, actually i have had many cuban friends. all expressed a profound love for their country and although they were émigrés, most returned for regular visits.
these are not facts but anecdotes. but anecdotes have shown me that most people in whatever country have no desire to go anywhere. do you?
good point, however. broad generalizations based upon small samples can be quite dangerous.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2007 @ 12:32pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/09/2007 @ 12:22pm
do go FREEDOMPLEASE!
unconventional wisdom since 1865 (i think) has to go through turbulent times. now, with this forum you have a voice to help sway people's opinions.
perhaps 6+ years of BUSHOCITY have frustrated people so........................
nonetheless, partisan politics in the name of power (and not the people) should be reprimanded, whether from the left or the right or centre or anywhere else!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2007 @ 12:46pm
sorry that's:
"DON'T, i repeat DON'T, go FREEDOMPLEASE
sorry brother (or sister)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/09/2007 @ 12:47pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 08/09/2007 @ 12:22pm
FREE, like FROSTY, I implore....don't leave. We need some sane ones around here (Left or Right), even the kind that have given up on the electoral process.
Besides, not sure that "The Nation" hasn't been critical of the Dems in Congress, just realistic about the fact that there are a lot of "Blue Dogs" and they can swing either way.
Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 1:27pm
As always, what may sound and look good on paper will never come to fruition in reality. . . .
All talk and little else....
Posted by ACOOK 08/08/2007 @ 8:35pm
Yup . . . just like those interstate highways they were promising several years back.
Posted by Hman23 at 08/09/2007 @ 3:26pm
how much of this "investment" will go towards outsourcing?
Posted by ACOOK 08/08/2007 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person
repairing the country's infrastructure cannot be outsourced.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 3:48pm
So, as usual, a problem caused by politicians is going to be fixed by those same politicians? Right.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person
so what do you suggest? the divine right of kings?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 3:49pm
Well, Frosty, if Cuba's healthcare is on par with US healthcare, why are so many trying to flee?
Posted by ACOOK 08/08/2007 @ 8:16pm | ignore this person
they're certainly not coming here for the free health care.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 3:51pm
Then why are the Europeans still moving here?
what makes you think they are still coming? many of the more recent immigrants from Ireland have returned there.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 3:56pm
there are also many young americans emigrating to Europe.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/09/2007 @ 3:59pm
Somebody the Cowardly Lion hasn't put on Ignore....ask him to back that up with figures and a citation of his source!
Posted by Mask at 08/09/2007 @ 4:22pm
Frei, you did not answer the question. if not politicians who? you have often expressed the view that all politicians are equally bad. of course that also means they are equally good. I am against that. I believe in making distinctions. some politicians are worse/better than others. it is up to us to find out who is who.
the thing about the kings was a joke. yes, I want the gov't to guarantee health care for all. that's what all civilized nations give back to their citizens. the citizens are willing to pay higher taxes, as they are in this country, according to polls. here our health care in under the control of insurance companies, corporations.
the thing with gov't is that when it makes mistakes or hurts us in any way, we have recourse. it is called elections. with corporations we have no recourse, except the courts. the courts are very expensive and corporations have big pockets. so we often have no recourse at all. here in NYC there is a seeping oil spill, going on for decades, much bigger than exxon Valdez. even with the help of our politicians they have not cleaned it up. GE polluted the upper Hudson river for years. eventhough they have promised to clean it up, they have not done so. so, what is the alternative to politicians? there isn't one.
yes I want to raise taxes. the gov't is in an 8 trillion dollar deficit. we need money. where will it come from? it will come from taxes, that is for sure. is it going to come from you or me, or from the likes of Oprah, Bill gates and the other super rich? the top 1% earners have doubled their share of the total wealth of the country in the last 25 years. that means our share has been thus diminished.
you never have any ideas for going forward, with you it's always gov't bad, politicians bad.
I am not for gov't intervention. I am for gov't doing what it is meant to do, provide for the welfare of the citizen. it cannot do this in Iraq. that war, that's big gov't. that's the intervention of gov't. that's a crime. that war has destroyed our country in more ways than financial.imagine if you can if the US had not invaded Iraq. where would our national discourse be now?
one more thing about "gov't" healthcare. the countries that have it get better results than we, for less money. stands to reason, the insurance companies are not taking their huge profits out of the pot, and single payer has the advantage of size, less overhead. health insurance is all about spreading the risk, and single payer spreads that risk pool much further. and that is why none of those countries are abandoning their system for ours. our is in crisis.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:13pm
Do you trust any of the candidates with a chance of becoming president from either party Johannesrolf. Do you trust them to institute positive change and eradicate the existing status quo?
yes I do. the dem candidates. they could hardly do worse than the criminals there now.
I guess you don't. so what is your alternative? and not that litany of platitudes.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:16pm
incidentally, presidents going back at least as far as FDR and Truman have wanted to institute comprehensive health care for their citizens.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:19pm
there is one thing that separates us, Frei. you are an ideologue, I am a pragmatist. I want what works. you want what fits your idealized view. incidentally, peace works far better than war, and it's cheaper too, as Iraq continues to demonstrate.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:29pm
. But corporations have to care, because consumers are the only true source of their power.
how do you reconcile this with the examples I gave. you live in a dream world. the utilities pumping poisons in the air. recourse? stop being their customer? hahahahaha, you live in a dream world. are you a somnambulist too? sorry, it's just not true.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:45pm
the way the Framers intended it.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person
the framers intended no standing army. you are an ideologue. the Framers knew not political parties, they knew not corporations. you are clinging to an illusion. it is not the size of gov't it is their actions. I, a Wahlamerikaner" have more faith in elections than you, who were born and educated here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:49pm
let's see what else the framers intended. slavery now and forever. women as chattel with no voting rights and no property rights, voting only for the rich. shall I go on?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 5:59pm
I believe in elections. that one of them, perhaps two, was stolen does not change my faith in democracy,
your argument about consumers influencing corporations has been demolished by my examples.
you want smaller gov't? cut the military in half. and then in half again.
a little realism in your posts would be refreshing.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:04pm
And it was voting only for property owners - if you wanted to be accurate.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person
I do. at that time not that many people owned property. you are grasping at straws, perhaps to bed down on with your dreams.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:06pm
But liberals are so natural in their classism, I understand where you're coming from.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 6:03pm | ignore this person
all my points have been practical, all of your ideological. at least I defend my class, while you are a traotor to yours, defending privileges you do not possess and never will possess. you and I will be middle class until the day we die. but the super rich are fortunate to have a defender of privilege in you, and many others here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:10pm
And it was voting only for property owners - if you wanted to be accurate.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person
actually property was not just real estate, but also money. ergo the rich.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:11pm
I think that was deemed constituional (abortion), under your right to privacy, personal autonomy etc. Not specifically.
I understand that many are anti-choice. But most of those ideals are based on religious precepts, not medical facts, thus un-legislatable.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 08/09/2007 @ 6:14pm
So, are you contending that boycotts have no effect in controlling the actions of corporations? Let me give you a little hint... Think the Civil Rights movement... Think busses... Remember?
absurd examples. those were city busses, not private. bang
How about Nike? Do you think consumer actions hasn't influenced their corporate direction? How about the boycott of Citgo gasoline? How many Starbucks in Vienna, Johannesrolf? Consumer actions there matter.
more absurdity. Vienna? please. I gave two examples of corporate malfeasance which no consumer action could address.
and if "your politicians" get in, everything will be okay
I never said this at all. and I will not rely on your common sense, as I haven't seen you demonstrate any.
the problems that gov't must address are very large. small gov't is not up to the job. you haven't even been able to define small gov't.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:23pm
plowshares instead of swords. health care instead of foreign military adventures. it would be a start.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:24pm
No, because of Government involvement over utilities, there really isn't much you can do as a consumer. You're right.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person
you can vote to change the gov't, as we have in the last election.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:27pm
but I believe it was land ownership,
no it wasn't. there was a sum set for voting as well.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:28pm
Frei, the rationale was that the ones who owned everything, they should run everything. anyway that framers thing is demolished. you're better off without your illusions. you should be more careful with your assertions, after all I'm an Allesbesserwisser.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:31pm
Here, let me break out my electron microscope and take a look how the last election changed anything.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 6:29pm | ignore this person
you just have to open your eyes. Bush's agenda is finished now that he doesn't have congress anymore. don't be foolish.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:33pm
how the last election changed anything.
healthcare for kids, to name just one. increase in the minimum wage. I know how much you hate for gov't to do something for the have nots and the ghave not so much.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 6:36pm
If the govt. is going to give away healthcare for free to all it's citizens, why stop there?
JR....since food is a basic human right, should the govt. provide free food to all?? How about gasoline, electricity, water??
-if you don't agree, please state why not.
Posted by Sliver at 08/09/2007 @ 7:10pm
Yeah, let me just open my eyes. Oh, right, the surge was a big change. Pelosi has really made a big difference. I can tell because of how popular Congress is right now..
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person
nonsense. you must learn to be more discerning. the surge is a commander in chief decision. he did not have ask congress and congress can't stop him, except with the purse strings. besides, give these dems some time. we'll talk again about this.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 7:19pm
JR....since food is a basic human right, should the govt. provide free food to all??
actually we as a people have decided to feed the hungry. that is why we have food stamps.
now don't come to me with these absurdities. I will not bite. you can argue with ypourself, und Sie können mir den Buckel runterrutschen.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 7:21pm
Frei, once in a while you should recognize publicly that I am right and you are wrong. like the thing with the busses in Montgomery., for instance. I would not hesitate to do so, as I have demonstrated here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 7:24pm
How about gasoline,
we pay so that Iraqis can have low cost gas. nice huh?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 7:25pm
[sigh] the government stealing from one group to give to another is never right Johannesrolf. Giving our tax money to subsidize defense contractors, or forcing employers to pay higher wages. Both are wrong.
nonsense, the gov't is not stealing anything when it sets a minimum wage. you might also demonstrate how single payer health care gives more power to the executive, as you have asserted. where do you get this nonsense from? really.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 7:47pm
No JR...not just food stamps for a select few or indirect gas prices for non-Americans. I'm talking free food and gasoline for ALL Americans.
After all...you need food EVERY DAY...and you use gasoline (even if you take the bus)EVERY DAY. You only need healthcare once in awhile. So why shouldn't we do that??
Posted by Sliver at 08/09/2007 @ 8:26pm
Here's an idea: acknowledge the wake-up call in Minneapolis and pull the funding of the "war".
I heard Bush's comments today regarding how Congress needs to figure out how to spend the taxpayers' money more wisely, and I couldn't agree more. Whatever he's asking for the war, cut him off. That's money that can g to public works infrastructure first. Now, I'm sure that there would be a clamor since all the stuff we'd left in Iraq would be in the hands of our enemies. Valid point, certainly, but an inevitable conclusion since there wasn't an exit strategy anyway. And it is interesting to point out that those same folks will clamor that we ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO replenish the munitions lost overseas. Sounds like another no-bid, non-compete opportunity for someone, doesn't it?
I say it's time we pull back for the foreseeable future. The gutting of the National Guard assisted in hindering the recovery of the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Katrina/Rita, and that force as well as our enlisted military ranks will suffer for a long, long time as a result. Revoking the permanent tax cuts of the Bush Administration and giving the military enough money to bring the troops home will be a big kick to the effort of bringing the infrastructure of this nation back to where it should be.
Bush, Cheney, Rove et al. love the scare tactics of what could happen now to justify their means to their questionable ends. But, much like the "No Child Left Behind" policy, it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
We have an open checkbook for a money pit of war profiteers, yet we can't put money nack into the future of our nation - namely, the infrastructure and our the education system. Sad. But what else can you expect from the party that continues to prove out their point that government is inefficient and ineffective - particularly, it should be noted, when they're running it.
Posted by etlingjm at 08/09/2007 @ 9:49pm
Frei, the bus line was not private. did you miss that? they were boycotting the city gov't of Montgomery, leaving your example useless.
I have not contended that socialized health care (I love how liberals hide the truth with an expression like "single payer") gives more power to the executive branch,
this is exactly what you asserted. go back and read your post.
I will never understand how you can't see the torment politicians have to live with given their incentives are for reelection and not for the public good.
this is your opinion. I disagree. I think it is a bit of both. they have to spend their time between elections somehow. your cynicism is in stark contrast to your illusions about small gov't, and your fantasy of enterprise going its own way without the help of the gov't.I believe I demolished that one when we spoke about computers.
you are another one who likes to argue with yourself and the straw man you erect for that purpose. I have never used the expression greedy rich. never.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2007 @ 8:42pm | ignore this person
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 9:55pm
Posted by SLIVER 08/09/2007 @ 8:26pm | ignore this person
I will not rise to the bait. I will not argue against absurdity in this way, with you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 9:56pm
incidentally, presidents going back at least as far as FDR and Truman have wanted to institute comprehensive health care for their citizens.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/09/2007 @ 5:19pm
Well, of course they did. Because they want the power, not because it is what's best for "the people."
here is your quote.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 9:58pm
Well JR, for that to happen you would have to be right. Please explain to the readers how the Montgomery bus boycott was not successful. It was. Boycotts work. They can control any profit motivated entity. I gave valid and real examples of where consumers have exercised their will against corporations.
too bad that's nonsense. it was a city bus line, not a private corporation.
you have off course failed to address my examples. GE pollute my river? a boycott? exxon pollutes a neighborhood. a boycott? it's just plain nonsense on your part.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 10:02pm
I love how liberals hide the truth with an expression like "single payer"
this is how experts refer to it. and this crap of liberals this liberals that has got to stop, if you wish to discuss with me.I don't go around with you conservative this and that.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/09/2007 @ 10:04pm
I will not rise to the bait. I will not argue against absurdity in this way, with you.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/09/2007 @ 9:56pm
Of course you won't...so I'll do it for you.
"Free gas" would result in gas lines that would make even Jimmy Carter blush. Followed shortly by the Hummer H-4, with seating for 15. Motor home sales would go through the roof. Not to mention capacity shortages due to demand from a hostile public. Ever been to someone's apartment who gets free heat and electricity? -Toasty in the winter with the windows open, and a meat-locker in the summer.
"Free food" would eventually lead to shortages or even sub-standard food supplies, and rationing. Then who do you dole out the "better" food to that's in short supply? Probably the rich who are willing to support a politicians campaign, especially those on the "Federal food board subcommittee." After all, there is NO competition to give you a choice, nobody to sue or boycott if you get screwed, and nobody that's forced to be flexible enough to accommodate your schedule.
...And just HOW would socialized medicine be any different? And what do we do with all those unemployed insurance people??
While I'm clearly no fan of the insurance/financial industry and their bloodsucking greed, socializing health care would take things from already bad to worse. Like the old saying goes..."Nobody ever washed a rental car".
Of course, you also couldn't fire the unionized bureaucracy federation that runs this wonderful program.
Posted by Sliver at 08/10/2007 @ 12:47am
so Sliv, what you are saying is that the insurance industry trumps people's health. which is of course nonsense. Insurance companies generally sell many kinds of insurance, so they will likely survive, which is more than you can say about people without health care.
when change comes, and it will come, some people may lose their jobs. typewriter manufacturers have had to find other work. same with steam locomotive makers. blacksmiths and horse stables faced a vastly diminished marketplace after the model T.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 07:19am
Happy, how's that liquidity doing? feeling the pinch yet? yes, Schadenfreude.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 07:30am
so Sliv, what you are saying is that the insurance industry trumps people's health.
Did I say that anywhere?? Don't think so. Nor do I believe that to be true. But you seem to be more than willing to gloss over a big dose of human nature regarding how many people "value" free stuff to put your faith in an even more unaccountable entity to control a very important aspect of peoples lives.
Our govt. could do more to encourage the insurance industry to cover those not covered already through incentives.
Posted by Sliver at 08/10/2007 @ 08:14am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/10/2007 @ 07:19am
Ask "Professer" ROLF (I'm on his growing Ignore list for back-sassing him...heheh)....if he knows HOW MANY people work in the private insurance industry and that he would so cavalierly put out of work?
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2007 @ 09:44am
Sorry, JR, but if you were a pragmatist, you wouldn't be pushing for a system which will destroy the economic health of the country. You keep claiming Europes' way of handling health care is better. Well, Maybe better for them, I guess. 'Course they can afford to do it that way: they're not running the world anymore. Keep feeding them that free chocolate cake, they'll be sick soon enough.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/10/2007 @ 10:10am
...$151 billion and $390 billion every year over the next 20 years to repair obsolete drinking water and wastewater systems, respectively...$131.7 billion and $9.4 billion is needed every year over the next 20 years to repair deficient roads and bridges...$1.6 trillion over the next five years would be required to alleviate problems with the nation's infrastructure
HOT DAMN! It's a good time for me to be in construction! Woo-Hoo, let the good times roll!
Posted by Person at 08/10/2007 @ 10:16am
"green collar jobs"
Now that's a new one! I swear, the reigion of environmentalism becomes nuttier by the minute. But it's not a joke that these zealots are just as dangerous to personal freedom and liberty as any other religious nut case. You can't see the light of day between Pat Roberts and Greenpeace when it comes to trying to impose their will on you, and that is a plain, straight fact.
Posted by Person at 08/10/2007 @ 10:39am
Our govt. could do more to encourage the insurance industry to cover those not covered already through incentives.
Posted by SLIVER 08/10/2007 @ 08:14am | ignore this person
right, shovel more money to the insurance companies, which already raking in record profits.
and your pontificating about human nature is not at all convincing.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 10:51am
Sorry, JR, but if you were a pragmatist, you wouldn't be pushing for a system which will destroy the economic health of the country.
alarmist nonsense.and nothing to back it up.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 10:53am
http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/compare.php
here is something for the fact averse posters on single payer health care.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:21am
"That's all fine and dandy," you say, but you want to know how we're going to pay for it all. A reasonable question. And for it, a reasonable solution.
Luckily there's already plenty of money in the health care system. The US spends double what most other countries spend on health care, and Americans still have shorter lifespans, and 45 million people still go uninsured every year. Many financing schemes exist. Hundreds of billions of dollars could potentially be saved in administrative costs, which would far exceed the amount needed to insure everyone in the United States. Put most simply, the money that businesses currently pay for health care would go to the single-payer; this would make up most of the money needed.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:22am
http://www.pnhp.org/
The Physicians' Proposal
Marcia Angell, MD Past Editor New England Journal of Medicine We endorse a fundamental change in America's health care - the creation of a comprehensive National Health Insurance (NHI) Program. Such a program - which in essence would be an expanded and improved version of Medicare - would cover every American for all necessary medical care.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:24am
True change will be difficult with fewer than 50% of eligible voters voting (on average). The notion of citizenship is weak and growing weaker. The government, after all, is supposed to be empowered by citizens, not the other way around. How this has occurred is the subject for thousands of books, theses, etc., but the truth is we have to find ways to stimulate citizen involvement and participation in making the changes. And stop preaching to the choir--as "Nation" readers apparently seem to be. We are seen not as citizens but as economic units--employees who work to make the rich richer....corporations now rule and lobbyists write legislation. Unless we renew our vows to the American Revolution, it will simply be more of the same.
Posted by mamelodi at 08/10/2007 @ 11:27am
I have seen estimates of more than 50% of doctors support a comprehensive national health insurance.
our present system over loads the doctors office with paperwork, with hundreds of competing plans.
the insurance companies have an interest in NOT insuring sick people. they're bad for the bottom line.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:27am
destroy the economic health of the country.
a war that takes a trillion out of the treasury on the other hand is a boon for this country.
an eight trillion dollar deficit, hey that's just the greatest. you are a pragmatist indeed Chip.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 11:56am
they're not running the world anymore.
and we are. of course we're not an empire, as you keep asserting, self contradictorily
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 12:30pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person
what about that bus boycott?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 1:35pm
Frei, read my sources on single payer?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 1:36pm
What about Nike? What about Starbucks in Vienna?, Johannesrolf. Both clear examples of the power of consumers over corporations.
you gave no examples. look, if you cannot acknowledge an error I will not speak with you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 1:58pm
Unhappy with your government's allocation of your hard earned tax money.
you have heard of voting?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 1:59pm
Frei you make no attempt to actually address my examples. I really don't know why I bother with you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 2:00pm
Frei: ohne mich.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 2:18pm
NEW YORK -- Wall Street closed out a difficult week with a mixed finish Friday after the Federal Reserve injected billions of dollars into the banking system to calm markets torn by worries about evaporating credit. The Dow Jones industrials, down more than 200 points during the session, ended with just a 31-point deficit and managed to post a gain for the week.
INJECTED? How is Capitalist if the markets need injections to "calm them down"?
Posted by conshame at 08/10/2007 @ 6:01pm
con, good point, it's that bad old big gov't at work. a more important issue is will it work. a stock market melt down spells trouble for all of us.I have noticed that the cheerleader Happy is no longer crowing here.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 6:59pm
The Federal Reserve MUST GO!
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person
perhaps so, but what will take its place?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 7:01pm
I love the end result of 27 years of the hamster movement.
Our country falls apart
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 8:54pm
who would have seen that coming?
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 8:54pm
Do you have the slightest idea what that means? Or is it more fun feeling good calling other people "hamsters".
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 9:58pm
yup, it means that after 27 years of the hamster movement, our country is falling apart.
you must have missed that when I said it earlier
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:03pm
Hey Will, are those magicians hamsters? Just curious.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 10:06pm
it's not magic. It's computers
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:08pm
and the full faith and credit of the United States of America
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:09pm
so that's really all you have left freibaby.
say it ain't so
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:12pm
Interesting, but I wonder how many of us can actually articulate what the Federal Reserve does for America?
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 7:25pm | ignore this person
other countries have national banks. you are going to have to do better than we'll replace it with something. you have been very vague on this subject, and just because hardly anyone understands this subject, that does not confer credibility on your part.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 10:14pm
before computers
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:15pm
but that was then
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:15pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 3:29pm | ignore this person
this guy has no credibility with me, none.
Interesting, but I wonder how many of us can actually articulate what the Federal Reserve does for America?
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 7:25pm | ignore this person
why don't you start? I have not seen you do so on this subject. I'm still reading the Britannica article on the fed, so soon there will be one less ignorant person on this subject. me.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/10/2007 @ 10:18pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 10:19pm
it's interesting how you say that we have all that money lying around yet then insist we remove the mechanism that allows for having all that money in reserve to begin with.
you might want to rethink your position
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:23pm
The money isn't there, bro.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 10:43pm
that's computers for you (oh wait, the federal reserve was founded before computers)
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:45pm
that's ok, I doubt you mean anything
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:47pm
I'm glad you cleared that up freibaby
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:49pm
whatever I can do to help
Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2007 @ 10:52pm
Unhappy with your government's allocation of your hard earned tax money.
you have heard of voting?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/10/2007
Voting for who? Do you really think that the people responsible to run healthcare are someone you are going to vote on?
Most likely that is going to be delegated to an APPOINTED cabinet level position. Think "Brownie".
You honestly don't think that human nature plays into how people regard stuff that they don't directly pay for? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Start with the public schools if you want an example. Here we pay 20-30% more for the inner city public schools than we do for the suburbs. Yet we're lucky to graduate 50% of those inner city kids. Last year, those same inner city schools were caught grossly understating truancy rates so that their funding levels were maintained. I'll spell that out for you...The students aren't going to their free school, the parents aren't making them, and those who stand to profit (schools) are complicit in allowing those truancies to their own selfish ends. Some wonderful "public" system.
Just off the top of your head, and without looking it up, take a wild guess as to exactly how much you paid in State and Federal taxes last year. I'll bet you can't even guess within $1,000. Why? Because you didn't have to cut a check for it. The beauty (evil) of withholding is so you have no idea how much you actually pay..and if it doesn't actually cost you anything, you don't really care.
You can cite all the wonderful anecdotes on how smoothly socialized medicine works, but without severe regulation/rationing/oversight, human nature regarding free stuff will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If it's free and unlimited, your local hospital will look like Wal-Mart in December when Playstation 3 comes out.
Posted by Sliver at 08/10/2007 @ 11:35pm
Sliv, I am self employed and I know exactly how much taxes I pay.
how socialized medicine works is not a matter of anecdotes but a matter of fact and statistics. when every other advanced country provides this for its citizens, don't you have at least some suspicion that it might work for those citizens?
incidentally it's "voting for whom". it's so charming when I have to correct all these native english speakers.
"Start with the public schools if you want an example. Here we pay 20-30% more for the inner city public schools than we do for the suburbs."
this is plain nonsense. schools are paid for by local taxes. that is why suburban schools have vastly more money to spend on their schools and students.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 08:45am
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2007 @ 10:48pm | ignore this person
you have been tip toeing around this for some time, without actually explaining what you are talking about. why don't you take a page from Rese and show citation and explaining exactly what you are talking about
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 10:18am
What did the Fed just do with $38 billion?
The Fed "Injected" funds? The Fed "Added" funds? What do they mean, "Injected"? What do they mean, "Added"?
Does it mean they printed up $38 billion in new bills?
When they "Inject" billions of dollars - who do they inject it into? Halliburton?
Are there any Conservatives OR Liberals who understand economics well enough to explain this?
Posted by conshame at 08/11/2007 @ 11:18am
Con, my limited understanding is that they took reserve money, and gave it to banks to assure they have enough cash, should someone wish to borrow some. when so many sub prime loans go bad, there is a teeeny tiny reluctance to lend money. again, my understanding of this is limited, and I call on better informed readers to jump in with their explanation.
one thing is clear, so many loans going bad is not a good thing. people are and will lose their houses in great, great numbers. this will drive the price of houses way down from the absurd heights they have occupied for too long.
Bush:" soft landing". bitter laughter all around.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 11:31am
Does it mean they printed up $38 billion in new bills?
this would take some time.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 11:33am
this is plain nonsense. schools are paid for by local taxes. that is why suburban schools have vastly more money to spend on their schools and students.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/11/2007
Maybe where you come from. Here, only 71% of our local money stays with the local school system. The rest gets redistributed to the inner city schools. Call it socialized if you will. And since the inception of that program, no change in attendance or graduation rates.
Most self-employed (myself included) know their tax expenditures. We're the exception because we have to cut that check. THose that are not, do not.
You don't need to correct my grammar old boy. It was an oversight. But I notice that you didn't refute what I said.
Posted by Sliver at 08/11/2007 @ 12:04pm
Naw, Johannesrolf, as you've stated, I have no credibility with you
no,no and no. I was referring to Stoessel. how could you get that idea?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 12:21pm
Frei, I'm off to work, on such a beautiful day too, my spouse is at her dance class, her work, among other things, such as running the business and more.
now y'all play nice.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/11/2007 @ 12:27pm
I have read up a little, and here is the best I can come up with. I really want to know what "Inject" billions of dollars, means. There are some good economists, some right wing self made millionaires who've really really studied Capitalism.
Here's what I have:
"Inject" billions of dollars means,
A) the Federal Reserve prints up the billions of dollars
B) the Federal Reserve loans the billions of dollars to a few insiders (WHO ARE THEY???)
C) these insider loans are made with ZERO interest, or very little interest. To a bank, a free loan or a cheap loan is basically free money
Now, I have heard alot of Conservatives talking about how Socialism is terrible, and the worst thing in the world is for the Government to give away free billions of dollars to people who were too lazy to earn that money. But I digress, basically I think I have "Inject" figured out, I still have a few un-answered questions such as what is the give-away "rate", and who are the individuals who get the free government money.
Posted by conshame at 08/11/2007 @ 1:01pm
Are there any Conservatives OR Liberals who understand economics well enough to explain this?
Posted by CONSHAME 08/11/2007 @ 11:18am
yeah, they took a loan out on us (it's part of that full faith and credit thing)and dumped it in the markets so they wouldn't crash.
the law was passed after the stock market crash of 1987 and was probably the thing most responsible for the market increases of the 1990's. The law virtually eliminated the downside of investing.
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 2:59pm
but even the upside has it's limits
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:00pm
oh and I almost forgot, there was no currency involved. It was all done in computers
Posted by Will C. at 08/11/2007 @ 3:01pm
Ever since this misguided war began, whenever I hear the cost of the war from time to time over the past 5 years, I think about the schools, the roads, New orleans, ect. I cannot stand it that we have spent so much money for ideology and have lost so much for the same. The conservative agenda called for no government money to go to repairs or programs. So, we have lost with their agenda and war. And now people are dying and destitute and suffering because of it. The sad part is that if we chose 7 of our candidates we will see this be addressed. If we chose the 8th one, it will be more of the same. and if it is addressed the jobs created to address this will go to people imported from other countries rather than to build the middle class again. So, we may have a strong field but, there is a republican in dem clothing and please choose carefully when voting. Our crumbling country and it's floundering economy cannot withstand a mistake this time.
Posted by vwcat at 08/12/2007 @ 12:04am
Sorry Will, but that is absolutely clueless. But nice try sounding like you know what you're talking about. You could be a newscaster!
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/11/2007 @ 6:26pm
ah, my mistake. It wasn't congress. It was the federal reserve. The thing you want to get rid of.
For the next several weeks, the Federal Reserve continued to inject reserves to buoy liquidity in financial markets.
a brief history of the 1987 stock market crash [tinyurl.com]
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 3:04pm
it's really funny because they did it again just last week. I'm so glad you hamsters have a big government safety net hanging underneath you.
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 3:05pm
But you can blame computers if you want, Will C.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/11/2007 @ 6:29pm
friebaby we have a 12 trillion dollar economy yet only about 600 billion in currency floating around and most of that out of the country.
wait, it think i understand your confusion. When financial transactions are made it is usually nothing more than data processing on a computer... don't you?
and that when the federal reserve dumps money into a market to save the investor classes collective ass they do so by computer... don't you.
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 3:52pm
please say you do
Posted by Will C. at 08/12/2007 @ 3:52pm
Bush v. Gore, it was stolen, the Supreme Court opinion was written anonymously - "Per Curiam". It ordered the State of Florida to stop counting the votes, it said that George Bush was the winner and if Florida counts the votes it may undermine his victory, thus disengranchising Bush of his right to be President. It actually states that "this ruling shall not create a precedent". It states that the Constitution does not guarantee a "right", to vote. The ruling ordered the State of Florida to immediately stop counting votes.
Posted by conshame at 08/13/2007 @ 09:42am
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/12/12568/1643
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 09:59am
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/13/2007 @ 10:49am | ignore this person
unlike the GWOT and GW, single payer has a proven and successful track record. for one thing it's cheaper.
"But looking at our federal government today, do you see it as efficient and fair?"
not these thieves, but they are on their way out. we can change our gov't.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/13/2007 @ 1:52pm
Will, of course computers are used. My point is that computers aren't the issue here. To dwell on computers is a side track from the real issue of the Federal Reserve.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/13/2007 @ 09:23am
Yeah it got to be really embarrassing to you hamsters that the Federal Reserve had to come to the rescue of the free market… yet again
Kind blows the whole myth about the awesome power of that invisible hand doesn't it?
Posted by Will C. at 08/13/2007 @ 9:21pm
well, what would you suggest to make gov't smaller? and what entity would you expect to address the problems we face in this country?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 09:10am
MLK's famous words "We have nothing to fear except fear itself" are applicable here.
hahahahahahaha. Martin Luther King? that must be where FDR got it from.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 09:35am
Frei, you have often mentioned that the war should be paid for as we go, and that if every family had to write a check for the war it would soon be over.well imagine if the super rich were paying for the war, in the form of a 90% tax bracket, it was actually up to 94% at one time, we would be outta Iraq presto.
In come tax was once known as the rich man's tax, because only they were paying it. forget the tax gimmicks. bring back the 90% top tax bracket.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 10:28am
bring back the 90% top tax bracket.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/14/2007 @ 10:28am
And John F. Kennedy called for a cut in it. Of course you know JFK, rabid right-winger and trickle-downer!
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 11:20am
JR, you are completely missing the boat with that 90% income tax bracket, in my humble opinion. Why punish productivity?
for the super rich to support their country is not punishment. none of you clowns have owned up to the fact that this was the policy then, and both the super rich and the republic thrived.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 11:56am
it must be quite a compliment to all you bootlicking lackeys that you are in the same tax bracket as the super rich. what fun. the reason you are paying so much in taxes is that the super rich pay too little.
the rich used to be proud to be in the top tax bracket. that was before they became victims, the poor dears.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 12:00pm
Can you at least consider that the IRS is the problem?
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person
no.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 12:58pm
I agree the super rich (Soros, the Clintons, Moore, Streisand, Kennedy, Spielberg, Laurie David, etc, etc,) aren't paying their fair share of taxes.
these are all dems. whataload of crap. are there no super rich repubs? are they all paying their fair share?
you are really a piece of work, Frei.
you're not interested in actually addressing any problems. you just use these issues as a club to beat your political opponents with.
you live in an idealized world. go on pretend that a smaller gov't can address our large problems. there is nothing pragmatic about your views. they all take place in some fantasy state.
lots of uninsured people, crummy health care? oh we fix it with smaller gov't. right.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 1:03pm
I agree the super rich (Soros, the Clintons, Moore, Streisand, Kennedy, Spielberg, Laurie David, etc, etc,)
what a big phony you are Frei.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 1:24pm
How does that make me a phony JR? Serious question.
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person
because your list has only dems on it. serious answer
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 2:33pm
Johannesrolf, can't you see that the CAUSE of MANY of the large problems I assume you are referring to IS THE GOVERNMENT?!!!
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 1:31pm | ignore this person
such as?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 2:33pm
. I mention the people I did to make sure we're in agreement that the problem of the rich not paying their fair share is non-partisan.
and that's why you only mentioned rich dems, in the spirit of bi partisanship? whattaphony.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 3:40pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person
all the wannabe defenders of the rich have come from your side of the aisle. I have never made a partisan distinction when speaking of the rich. I have never said rich repubs, or rich dems. never, unlike you.
all I have ever said that the 90% tax bracket was the policy during war and other times of need for the country. I think we are in very bad straights now. everything is deficits and war. let the super rich step up, as they no doubt did back then.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 4:35pm
in your mental image
this is really disgusting. now you claim to be able to speak for MY mental image. can't you see how outrageous that is?
this is not working for me, and I'm putting you on ignore.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 4:37pm