Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
As President Obama approaches the 100-day mark of his presidency, he delivered a speech Tuesday at Georgetown University in which he laid out what he sees as the foundation of a new economy. Using this crisis--and his gift of oratory--Obama signaled that the fight for the next economy begins now.
He alluded to the Sermon on the Mount to describe the stronger, more fair economy he envisions: "There is a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men," he said. "The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was destroyed as soon as the storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for when '...the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house...it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.' We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock."
I think the speech is important for what it reveals about Obama's understanding of the task ahead--building a new economy out of the ashes of our failed one.
But real and grounded concerns about the administration's bank bailout plan remain. As Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote recently in a New York Times op-ed the Obama administration's plan is "far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses...the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves -- clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets...." Other good thinkers share this view, including Paul Krugman, Simon Johnson, William Greider and Robert Reich.
While Obama's speech lays out some strong principles for a new foundation, the administration's financial team remains unwilling to understand that we're not just going through a financial crisis or a panic, but the failure of a whole model of banking. We are living amid the blowback of an overgrown financial sector that did more harm than good.
As The Nation's Greider has argued we need a new banking system--smaller and more diverse and responsible to the public interest. Creating this new system is where public resources should be committed, not to saving banks that are "too big to fail". We should create public banks and non-profit savings and lending cooperatives to serve as an important check on private commercial banks. We need to make banks the servants--not the masters--of our economy. Only when we do that will a new regulatory framework do what's needed; it would be a mistake to simply re-regulate the shadow banking system which got us into this mess.
If this realization begins to sink in through the failure of the current plan--and Obama's commitment to pragmatism and experimentation suggests he might be willing to move to Plan B with sufficient pressure from mobilized citizens and thinkers who envision a different model than the Summers/Geithner approach--then we're on the road to laying the foundation, the rock, for a new economy.
But creating that new economy will require what Obama himself might call "tough choices"--and some different "pillars" from the ones he outlined today. We need affordable health care; pensions above social security; and sustained public investment in areas vital to high wages in a global economy--affordable colleges, world-class public schools, and a 21st century infrastructure. We need to restructure--not just re-regulate--the financial sector so that banking is once again a "boring" occupation devoted to making loans to the real economy, not peddling exotic and (as we now know) toxic instruments. We need to break-up and restructure major banks that are on life support and "too big to fail." And we need to fight for the Employee Free Choice Act--so that workers are able to organize and bargain collectively, and the middle class is rebuilt and strengthened.
The mother of all fights lies ahead--beyond the first 100 days--as lobbies mobilize to halt the reforms needed to rebuild and reconstruct a new economy of shared prosperity. The drug and insurance companies, the business lobby, multinationals that seek to retain tax havens -- they will all warn ominously of massive job losses, failed businesses, and much suffering for each and every needed reform offered.
Despite the flaws of the bank bailout, President Obama has signaled that we can work toward a new economy. But it will require a massive mobilization of citizens. We've had thirty years of the markets-know-best-and-are-self-correcting, government get out of the way, let CEOs rule, maximize executive profits--dogma. The catastrophic results are in. Now begins the fight to rebuild a balanced economy in which government is on the side of the people, corporations are held accountable, and workers are empowered.
Long-term challenges should be seized, not ignored--lest we remain on shifting sands.
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
"We should create public banks and non-profit savings and lending cooperatives to serve as an important check on private commercial banks. We need to make banks the servants--not the masters--of our economy"
Hmm, didn't I just post something about this today as a requirement from the Communist Manifesto?
"5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
And this one Katrina?
"But it will require a massive mobilization of citizens. We've had thirty years of the markets-know-best-and-are-self-correcting, government get out of the way, let CEOs rule, maximize executive profits--dogma. The catastrophic results are in. Now begins the fight to rebuild a balanced economy in which government is on the side of the people, corporations are held accountable, and workers are empowered."
Seems Karl was a good teacher to you!
"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible"
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 6:43pm
Hey anti,
Hitler said Karl Marx was bad and you're implying Karl Marx was bad. So I guess that makes everything you say incorrect. Isn't it so fun to compare an opinion you don't like to some stock villain's opinions so that you don't have to actually address the arguments? My first post here guys and gals. Three years ago I was a National Review subscriber. Do I get a fatted calf or anything like that?
Posted by PentopAnger at 04/14/2009 @ 7:17pm
"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
- Abraham Lincoln
The dems have fucked us for good.
Posted by YourJomamma at 04/14/2009 @ 7:20pm
Speeches are just that. He's good at them; but he's made a lot of them. Let's see him *deliver* something on the economy besides Timothy Geithner.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/14/2009 @ 7:22pm
Posted by PentopAnger at 04/14/2009 @ 7:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Boy, you've come a long way. Welcome back to the light side of the Force ;)
Posted by syfriendly at 04/14/2009 @ 7:25pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 04/14/2009 @ 7:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually, both parties contributed broadly to the economic problems of today - both the Clinton and Bush administrations hollowed out the US economy, favored unquestioned deregulation where it turns out to be imprudent, favored the executive class over anyone the middle class etc. Presumably those are the problems you are referring to when you say "f---ed" for good. Or did you just want to copy and paste some state by Abraham Lincoln and then put your "f---ed" for good statement underneath that, to try to borrow some of Lincoln's authority as your own?
Posted by syfriendly at 04/14/2009 @ 7:30pm
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Abraham Lincoln
Yo jomomma, Just because Abe said it doesn't make it so. Use your noodle. That's your brain! The economy has changed a lot in 150 years. Thank you, friendly.
Posted by PentopAnger at 04/14/2009 @ 7:33pm
Hitler said Karl Marx was bad and you're implying Karl Marx was bad. So I guess that makes everything you say incorrect. Isn't it so fun to compare an opinion you don't like to some stock villain's opinions so that you don't have to actually address the arguments? My first post here guys and gals. Three years ago I was a National Review subscriber. Do I get a fatted calf or anything like that?
Posted by PentopAnger at 04/14/2009 @ 7:17pm
With logic like you just exhibited, it's no wonder you have no idea what you are.
Obviously by attempting also to charge that I don't address arguments also shows you have not spent any time here over the past 4 years.
So I will excuse your enthusiastic ignorance and welcome you to the website.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 7:34pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 04/14/2009 @ 7:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Really, try and respond to me - you seem to be claiming that the Democrats have done terrible, terrible damage to the economy - hence the "f---ed" for good statement - but that seems odd to me if you are talking about the Obama administration, which has been in power for 10 weeks and has done little but turn over an immense sum of money to the heads of the former "shadow" banking system. Most of what the Obama administration wants to do hasn't even gotten into bill form yet. So I am left thinking you are blaming past presidential administrations and Congresses for the problems of today. Again, you seem odd - the last 8 years were 8 years of George Walker Bush, with 6 years of his reign of error backed by Republican Congresses and a Republican Supreme Court that gave him whatever you want - but placing that peculiar aspect of you aside, I can only assume you are referring to either the Clinton or the Carter administrations.
How have the Democrats "f---ed" us good? Aside from Clinton, who was faced with an adversarial Congress, the Democrats have not been a majority party for more than two years since the Carter administration.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/14/2009 @ 7:35pm
Posted by syfriendly at 04/14/2009 @ 7:35pm
That's because just like all the other fools who spew here, he knows just how to assign blame where it doesn't belong!
Let's just forget that any thinking person can completely agree with the Democrats being a significant part of the problem, without acting and sounding like a partisan tool/moron/hack. Personally I can't stand the Dem leadership as they're all just as bad and greedy and evil as their Republican counterparts.
But yes, just remember the whole Bush administration and the republican controlled government since 1994(!!!) are tools of the evil "leftists". All of their grand ideas to run this country and make things better were squashed by the democratic MINORITY. LOL! That's how out of touch with reality these people are.
After all, all of those problems during Bush's term were caused by...Bill Clinton?!?!! At least he's been good at "protecting" us from all the terrorists...except for that whole 9/11 thing. But we don't want to talk about that.
Newt Gingrich is a communist!! LOL
Posted by TexasFlood at 04/14/2009 @ 7:47pm
Yo anti, again,
I was parodying your post. Just that post. You did seem to suggest that "Seems Karl was a good teacher to you! " is an adequate rejoinder. I do apologize if not all your posts are that vapid. I am new here. But I must admit, I am skeptical.
Posted by PentopAnger at 04/14/2009 @ 7:53pm
....President Obama...alluded to..."first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was destroyed as soon as the storm hit. .......We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand....."
KvH: I think the speech is important for what it reveals about Obama's understanding of the task ahead--building a new economy out of the ashes of our failed one.......The catastrophic results are in....
I gather the marching order from the WH this week, is that our economy is to be pegged as in "failed" mode and Ms. KvH duly picked up her cue.
Each time since Magic became the POTUS, when our economy was talked down as "failed", some crap gets shoved down our throat and some more hundreds of billions are added to the national debt. Word is, this is the Big Push for his $4 TRILLION Budget!
Funny, for a "destroyed" (per Magic) or a "failed" (per KvH) economy, it sure seems that overall, things aren't nearly as bad as in the last year of the Carter presidency.......
Hell, if this is what a "destroyed/failed" US economy looks like in real time, I can dig it! I want THIS as a permanent state of the economy......8.5% unemployment is acceptable in order to have <1% inflation, long-term borrowing rates at under 5%, and reasonably-priced stocks aplenty!
Posted by Happy at 04/14/2009 @ 8:00pm
"The dems have fucked us for good"
but bush had us right on track.
"How have the Democrats "f---ed" us good? Aside from Clinton, who was faced with an adversarial Congress, the Democrats have not been a majority party for more than two years since the Carter administration."
do you honestly think that maasch is going to open his heart and see the light or something? the guy is here to make your life miserable. he has no interesting in learning anything, in engaging in honest discussion, or evolving as a human being.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 8:04pm
KvH implies that whether this administration actually does something good for the economy rests on three critical assumptions: (1) that failure of its current plan to rescue the banks will cause the administration to realize that restoring the system to where it was a few years ago is not the solution; (2) that the administration has a Plan B which involves something other than restoring the current system; and (3) that the administration will have the political capital to be able to implement Plan B after its initial plan has failed.
Based on Obama's speech and his administration's actions to date, (1) and (2) seem unlikely, and once it becomes clear that the administration's current plan is a failure then (3) also will be unlikely. That doesn't leave us in a very good situation.
On the positive side, it was a very good speech.
Posted by taikan at 04/14/2009 @ 8:15pm
I do apologize if not all your posts are that vapid. I am new here. But I must admit, I am skeptical.
Posted by PentopAnger at 04/14/2009 @ 7:53pm
Your skepticism is warranted. Anti is as extreme and vapid as he appears to be.
You'll see, believe me.
Posted by FDR43 at 04/14/2009 @ 8:26pm
He's sort of the resident "crazy uncle" we keep around for laughs.
Posted by FDR43 at 04/14/2009 @ 8:27pm
And oh yes, I forget to mention that God is on his side.
Posted by FDR43 at 04/14/2009 @ 8:29pm
Haha FDR,
Thanks for the head's up. Is he by any chance a rich uncle? I need me one of those. Maybe then I could go back to being a conservative. I miss the fun of defending the indefensible!
Posted by PentopAnger at 04/14/2009 @ 8:31pm
taikan, well said. and the reason i think plan A will fail, and why plan B likely won't get off the ground, is because obama stupidly sought a mythical bipartisan solution, and why the hell are people like geithner and summers a part of his advisory team?
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 8:33pm
Darladoon,
How about Paul Krugman replacing Geithner?
Posted by FDR43 at 04/14/2009 @ 8:39pm
"How about Paul Krugman replacing Geithner?"
not so sure about that, but i honestly like the idea of spitzer. but i'm afraid if he were to replace geithner, he'd suffer the same fate as AG.
Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 8:54pm
More than usual, the following speculation is based on next to no actual grip on the attendant realities:
Shifting sands facing O right out of the box / Newly minted leader of the free world / / A free world about to collapse / Had to make some fast calls / Bail out AIG or slit your throat went the chant / Ended up with the lesser of evils in Geitner & Summers / He'll come into his own in time / We'll see some tightening up on these unapologetic insiders, in early '10
"Nationalize" is MSM's new "Terror", code for socialism / anti-American. Hopefully, O'll drop this garbage term soon, and get on with returning banks to as KVH says to eloquently, their proper boring place.
Go O!
Posted by winyahn at 04/14/2009 @ 9:10pm
syfriendly,
You asked "....How have the Democrats "f---ed" us good?...."
Here's how:
Jimmy Carter
1. Completely mismanaged Iran, creating a situation that haunts us to this day... and has potential to haunt us even worse.
2. Created malaise and double digit inflation and long gas lines and weakened the military. (...these did get fixed by Ronald Reagan, but they caused misery for the country at the time).
Slick Willie
1. In his administration, Jamie Goerelick set up the "wall" preventing the exchange of information between intelligence agencies and law enforcement... this may have prevented "dots" to bubble up that maybe could have been connected and thus maybe 9/11 prevented.
2. Weakened the military, he was the first U.S. President on record as admitting he loathed the military.
3. Allowed Loral Space to sell missile technology to the communist Chinese (prohibited normally without the presidential waiver Slick granted) that enables the Chinese to strike our West coast with nuclear missiles. The CEO of Loral is a buddy and campaign contributor to Slick Willie.
Barack Obama
1. Using the economic crisis as an excuse to put for the Democrat wish list, most of which has nothing to do with and will not help change the economy. It will enable the generation of deficits way beyond those ever experienced before and will enable more government control over many aspects of our lives.
2. During his campaign and again recently, goes over to Europe and apologizes for things in the past he thinks his own country is wrong about.
3. Plans to weaken the military
4. Plans to let the terrorist darlings out of Gitmo.
5. Plans to leave Iraq as soon as he can.. but will this be before it is save to do so?
To Be Continued
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 9:48pm
syfriendly,
Those are the high (or I should say low) points.
I will now discuss two Democrats I did not include on the list.
Lyndon B. Johnson
1. Even though he is the architect of the Great Society and a lot of the massive government that has not helped the people it was meant to help, I honestly believe he did this because he wanted to make lives better for people in this country. He did not do this stuff because he wanted to promote some lib agenda or because he was some kind of near-Communist like Darladoon.
He wanted to make life better for people. It is my belief that if Mr. Johnson were still alive today, he would not be pushing the things that he pushed/implemented in the 1960's. He would be saying that those approaches did not work and he would be looking for approaches that would work.
Thus, he would not be like modern day libs who are pushing things that do not work in order to advance the lib agenda and because they live in some class warfare inspired fantasy world.
I am reading a book now "Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream" by Doris Kearns Goodwin... and I have read plenty of other things about LBJ... and none of these things were written by people who could be labeled as Conservatives. I am correct in what I am talking about.
John F. Kennedy
1. He, along with President Ronald Reagan, defeated the Soviet Union, which I have discussed on other threads in the last couple of days.
2. He planned to cut taxes to spur economic growth. LBJ followed through on this plan and implemented the tax cut.
JFK was not like modern day libs, something modern day libs do not like to be reminded about.
When Sen. Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle in the debate that he was no Jack Kennedy - Sen. Bentsen could have said the same thing if he was debating Ted Kennedy!
Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 9:58pm
"f---ed" us good?...." Posted by sjchermak at 04/14/2009 @ 9:48pm
Hey Schworm! The orginal quote by Yomamma was "The dems have fu**ed us for good". You make it sound like the dems gave the repugs a good roll in the hay..
You start out your post right out of the gate with a distortion. Then you continue the distortions throughout the remainder of your little tirade.
Posted by chaoszen at 04/14/2009 @ 10:30pm
I dispute that the sermon beginning with "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom..." was originally written by Abraham Lincoln.
After googling this phrase, I found the following attribution:
'Something for those who are into "wealth redistribution" to consider. The following quote is from the late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) who was the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church and founder of Love Worth Finding Ministries.
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.'
That was Dr. Adrian Rogers, not Abe Lincoln. Unless somebody can prove to me that Rogers was quoting Lincoln, I will conclude that this sermon originated with Rogers.
It is useful, when dealing with conservatives, not to accept ANY claim they make at face value until you have done at least a little research. (I wish more JOURNALISTS would do this, and not only with conservatives, but with ALL pundits and professional talking heads.)
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2009 @ 10:31pm
Just a quick note to all of you who work for a living: as you sign over your savings to the Federal government tomorrow, just think about how you feel knowing that the USG under Obama is just going to give your money to the chairmen of Goldman-Sachs in the form of taxpayer-supplied multi-millionaire paychecks and bonuses.
In other words, you're being robbed. Never forget it.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/14/2009 @ 10:36pm
For contrast, here's something that Abraham Lincoln actually DID say. Rick Crawford of the University of California-Davis dug up the following quotation:
"It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
The passage, Crawford writes, appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2009 @ 10:36pm
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2009 @ 10:36pm
I don't think I'll ever see a leftist post either of these 2 quotes from Lincoln.
"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Address at Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, Maryland" (April 18, 1864), p. 301-302.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:11pm
The Obamanation that makes desolation President Messiah of the left has spoken and his Demoncrat friends are ready and willing to carry out his will reinforced by KVH. It just can't get better than for conservatism in 2010 and 2012!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/14/2009 @ 11:21pm
The passage, Crawford writes, appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2009 @ 10:36pm
Now to burst your bubble. The Lincoln warning you cite is a phony....
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp
Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:40pm
Gosh darn those houseless people and their house-wrecking ways! Somebody should take away their wrecking balls!
I do not favor the destruction of perfectly good dwellings by anyone. However, dear old Lincoln was only partly right when he said "property is the fruit of labor" (in that quotation helpfully provided by "antisocialist"). Property is the fruit of BOTH labor AND material resources, including most particularly raw materials and the right tools for the job, which nowadays are very high-tech. Dear old Karl Marx called these things the "means of production" (German: Produktionsmittel).
If you don't have means of production, you can work as hard as you like, but you won't produce anything; by flapping your arms in the air, all that you work up is perspiration. On the other hand, if you OWN a lot of means of production, such as a factory (or better yet, shares in many factories), you may not have to work at all; instead, you can pay others to work for you.
What socialists require is not that others should work for them. What they require is that we all should be given the material resources that we need in order to work, and in order to live comfortably by working.
To the degree that we DO give people what they need to work (which in a modern world includes technical job training as well as high-tech tools), and to the degree that we do make WORK, rather than mere OWNERSHIP, rewarding, we are in fact socialists in Marx's sense.
Caring for the truly needy, such as the elderly and the sick, by diverting surplus money from the wealthy, is of course another part of the socialist program, one that Marx endorsed, but that predates Marx by a very long time and has been favored by many wise and compassionate people, including several founders of religions.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/14/2009 @ 11:56pm
"Obama's Economic Sermon on the Mount"
what the hell is that nonsense?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2009 @ 12:16am
"It just can't get better than for conservatism in 2010 and 2012!"
that's true, but not in the sense that you mean.
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2009 @ 01:29am
i have read the comments of some of our right wing friends here for some years in silence. i have been dismayed by the comments of some on the left as well as the right, for there is a regular crowd here who do not make thoughtful arguments. rather they merely engage in mudslinging that is not even well dressed as argument. now i see that i must use the ignore list. i cannot engage with those who take the words of another when it is clear from their misuse that they do not understand what the other believed.
the quotes from abraham lincoln used here are misused. the first, regarding the right to the fruits of one's labor, which was one of lincoln's most firmly held beliefs, and one the primary reasons for his hatred of slavery, is clearly not a quote that the writer understands.
and the use of the quote regarding equality between the races, the driving issue of his day, is taken from a political speech in which his motivations are clearly misunderstood by the person who quotes him here. lincoln positioned himself as a conservative, and he used conservative means - but he did so to achieve radical ends. it takes a deep reading of his words and his life to understand his positions because he was a masterful politician on the leading edge of his party - a party founded with the purpose of stopping the spread of slavery into the western territories with the hope of ridding this nation of the plague of slavery in the longer run - a result that they believe the founders had also wished would come about, as evidenced, in part, by their calling for the end of US participation in the atlantic slave trade in 12 years time after the ratification of the constitution.
might i suggest that you study lincoln if you wish to understand his positions?
Posted by dancing-laughter at 04/15/2009 @ 01:53am
might i suggest that you study lincoln if you wish to understand his positions?
Posted by dancing-laughter at 04/15/2009 @ 01:53am
I'm sorry you have such a low opinion on the cognitive abilities of others here.
Besides my stating that I didn't think many leftists would use those quotes, what specifically makes you think that I wouldn't comprehend them?
I'm going to have to go back and sue my university for giving me a faulty degree in history 34 years ago.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 03:04am
I'm going to have to go back and sue my university for giving me a faulty degree in history 34 years ago.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 03:04am
Knowledge of facts doesn't equate to understanding of purpose.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 03:33am
goldman sachs has swallowed december!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2009 @ 07:25am
Posted by YourJomamma at 04/14/2009 @ 7:20pm
Hey, MAASCH, glad you're back.
Now....what is the ORIGINAL source of that Lincoln quote out of curiosity?
(BTW, you will direct me to a right-wing blog or say you just "heard it somewhere" and not to the original source...just a heads-up!)
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 08:10am
The dems have fucked us for good.
Posted by YourJomamma at 04/14/2009 @ 7:20pm
awe, the poor victims on the right! All the blame lies elsewhere, why nobody, and I mean nobody, from the republican side shares any blame, none, zippo, zilch.
John and SJ are so quick to jump onto the "we are merely victims" approach they usually ascribe to liberals and assorted leftists.
As he is appearing in another article easily reached on The Nation webpage, let's start with Phil Gramm. He and his wife helped out campaign contributor Ken Lay, got laws passed to help Enron, did not do audits that would have exposed the illegalities Enron was engaging in. this cost the US citizen a LOT of money and is a part of Californias current mess, still. Gramm was a lead Executive at UBS, which is caught up in a MAJOR tax fraud case, he also wrote some of the laws that allowed banks to create Credit default swaps and complex derivatives. He was still a power player when Fannie and Freddie were given the authority to do what the neo-cons blame for our current economic mess.
SJ blames the dem presidents going back 40 years, ignoring the fact that in that time period republicans had the Head Office 28 of those 40 years. In that time the dems did control congress, but the veto pen was readily available. In his 8 years in office Bush used it 17 times to "control" the republicans in HIS congress.
For the last 28 years "the left" has been MIA in the White house. Clinton was as close to a republican as one can get, without the moniker. He was PRO-big business, pro "free trade", he did very little to promote wage growth. Bush I and II were against wage growth, focusing their talents on the top "earners" and creating regulation, and de-regulation, that allowed the wealth of those top feeders
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 09:54am
...to grow exponentially while wages grew at a snails pace. This, at one time, was called "Trickle down economics" or "voodoo economics" by one anti-American president.
Meanwhile, "the right" was fighting tooth and nail to keep campaign contributions flowing freely. Whenever anybody tried to stop the ENRONS and AIG's of the world from buying congress critters, "the right" rose up in a sweat filled outrage to whine about free speech. Now that their money lenders got WHAT THEY WANTED, and what Jomama and SJ WANTED, they seek to blame someone else.
Anti, seeing money being asked for BY THE BANKS and industry sees the government taking control of these groups. What has the government done, at the behest of George Bush, other than give away their kids money? Is there any control of production? GM let go their CEO, which is what Rep Cantor wanted, and last I checked he was not a Marxist. Or is he now? He wants unions to make massive concessions, but I see no similar request of the white collar staff at the Little 3.
Why no "Marxist" labels for the CEO of CEREBUS or CITIGROUP?
I have yet to see a single Plan from the cons here that would help our economy, other than tax cut's for those that are doing fine, thank you. Tax cuts for Goldman Sachs CEO's and CFO'a, tax cuts for Rick Waggoner, John Snow and Nicole Ritchie.
They all wrote back on Nov 5th how they were going to get behind their new president. All I have seen since is blame and whining. 2 of you have threatened to leave. What is holding you back? Don't let the door hit you in the ass. You helped create this mess, a real man, a real patriot, would step up and admit that they were part of the problem and will help fix it, not cut and run.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:07am
I have asked repeatedly, and gotten no response, from the cons.
What would have happened to the stock mkt and our economy if AIG, CITIGROUP, Goldman Sachs and others that took OUR money had collapsed?
What would have happened if, instead of allowing AIG to grow into an international spiderweb of complex debtors, they had been forced to follow anti-trust laws passed by a REPUBLICAN?
Or what if, Big business had allowed itself to be policed by The Evil State and had capitalized itself properly instead of leveraging our whole country into a hole?
What if your real God, Alan Greenspan, had done his job instead of promoting debt?
What if you asked for regulators, instead of "real business men" , to run the regulatory agencies? I mean really! You guys wanted Goldman Sachs CEO's in charge, you WANTED ex CEO's of companies running federal agencies.
And you got it.
Now you blame "the left"
Give it a rest, enjoy the reach around fuck you asked for.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:16am
Knowledge of facts doesn't equate to understanding of purpose.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 03:33am
Yes, but I continue to dialogue with you despite this shortcoming on your part.
Sarcasm aside, my point in the response to dancing-laughter was that he/she had nothing to base that conclusion on from what I posted.
I understood Lincoln's purpose very well. I certainly don't require some unknown blogger to help me understand Lincoln. I was studying him probably before your mother was born.
I've been to the Lincoln home in Sprinfield. I've read Lincoln now for nearly 60 years.
Like DL, you are merely posturing out of a dismissive leftist arrogance.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:27am
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:07am
What would have happened to the stock mkt and our economy if AIG, CITIGROUP, Goldman Sachs and others that took OUR money had collapsed?
What would have happened if, instead of allowing AIG to grow into an international spiderweb of complex debtors, they had been forced to follow anti-trust laws passed by a REPUBLICAN?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:16am
Marxist thought exists in corporate America as well as it does in academia. They see themselves in the new paradigm proposed by some socialist groups; wherein they see a hybrid of marxist/socialism and capitalism, with a regulated capitalism being the economic fuel for the socialist societal framework they see as the goal.
As to the Banks and the AIG's, I have advocated that it is better in the long term to let them fail as our system provides for and either be reconstituted as new entities or by swallowed up by stronger companies. Certainly while there would be temporary downturns, the long term benefit is more sound than the massive debt that will most likely cripple any hope of a long term recovery for the US.
If I don't support subsidies to corporations and agribusiness, I'm certainly not going to support the financial support that has been given by both Bush and Obama.
I don't hesitate to state that Bush's failure to respond as a conservative to the fiscal events of that began last year, hardly endears him to conservatives like myself when it comes to the domestic side of his presidency.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:36am
I understood Lincoln's purpose very well. I certainly don't require some unknown blogger to help me understand Lincoln. I was studying him probably before your mother was born.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:27am
so humble....
jesus would be proud.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2009 @ 10:36am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:36am |
What would have happened to the stock mkt and our economy if AIG, CITIGROUP, Goldman Sachs and others that took OUR money had collapsed?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:38am
Larry, please list the countries that have no socialism of any kind.
And give your reasons for not living in one of those countries.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:39am
"If I don't support subsidies to corporations and agribusiness, "-anti
What did you do to prevent those subsidies?
As you tell it, you have contacts on-high in this country, in the religious realm, government and private sector. Your "side", the religious free mkt right, ran this country for 8 years. What did you do, who did you talk to, what rallies did you organize, which campaign contributions did you oppose and which CFO's did you corner at church to stop corporate welfare?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:42am
cuz, see, as I recall, it was the evil "left" that opposed corporate subsidies, not "the right".
willing to be corrected.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:44am
Gotta run, I did not take my wife to work today to be the sole bread winner, must go fire up the production of buggy whip launching atlatl's.
See if you can come up with that list of socialism free countries for me Rev. It is only the fourth time I have asked for a simple answer.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:54am
"If I don't support subsidies to corporations and agribusiness, "-anti
What did you do to prevent those subsidies?
As you tell it, you have contacts on-high in this country, in the religious realm, government and private sector. Your "side", the religious free mkt right, ran this country for 8 years. What did you do, who did you talk to, what rallies did you organize, which campaign contributions did you oppose and which CFO's did you corner at church to stop corporate welfare?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:42am
I wrote letters to the Bush Administration, to the Republican party, and I informed them that I would no longer provide any financial support as long as they continued those kind of economic practices.
And no CFO's in my churches (other than those self-employed's who also technically wear that hat). But they received no subsidies.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:19am
Larry, please list the countries that have no socialism of any kind.
And give your reasons for not living in one of those countries.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:39am
See if you can come up with that list of socialism free countries for me Rev. It is only the fourth time I have asked for a simple answer.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 10:54am
It is unfortunate that the US along with other countries have adopted many socialist programs to pacify rather than educate the citizenry on the importance of self-reliance.
But I'm a life-long libertarian and simply because others do not embrace my political viewpoint is not reason to abandon it. I believe in the principles of libertarian govt over the capitalist/socialist hybrid we and most non communist countries have.
The difference between me and others that criticize from the right here and elsewhere is that I'm willing to suffer the consequences from not "taking advantage" of the socialist programs in this country.
Even in our worst economic moments, we have never taken food stamps or other govt assistance.
And now I'm preparing to retire from the system altogether in less than 2 years.
I don't need much to live on and I won't be in the medicare system (especially if we are able to relocate to El Salvador), even as I don't participate now in healthcare insurance.
I always am prepared to lose everything, including my life rather than be dependent on govt run or controlled programs.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:27am
Progressives - The Nation included - continue to see Obama as one of their own. Such misplaced expectation is sure to end in tears.Did no one on that side of the pond follow the recent G20 Summit? Obama's proposal for light- touch-only regulation was way to the right of the CONSERVATIVE leaders of France and Germany, who correctly called for far stricter regulation of the banks.
Posted by pongacat at 04/15/2009 @ 11:53am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:27am
Actually, you are a "situational libertarian", Larry.
A PURE libertarian would object to the government mandating a person having to buy automobile insurance, and would say it should be left to an individual's own choice.
You do not believe that.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 11:54am
I always am prepared to lose everything, including my life rather than be dependent on govt run or controlled programs.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:27am
Naw...
I always am prepared to lose everything, including my freedom, in order to be dependent on gov't run or controlled programs.
Fixed it fer ya...
Posted by sntauri at 04/15/2009 @ 11:54am
crabwalk,
You say (about Conservatives):
"......They all wrote back on Nov 5th how they were going to get behind their new president. ......"
You need to refresh your memory about things back then.
At that time (November 5 through to inauguration), as Obama was starting to load up his administration with Clinton retreads, we were seeing gloating on this website from some libs who were saying that Conservatives were wrong about they way they had portrayed Obama.
They were saying essentially (in my own words to express the sentiment) that Obama was not going to be the big bad Socialist that Conservatives had made him out to be.
At the same time on this site, there were some real strident hard left libs that were expressing disaproval with Obama for not being left enough. They percieved that Obama had sold them out, that he was not going to implement the agenda after all, that he was no different than any other politician.
As always, Mask was patrolling the blogs reminding Conservatives of how they were supposedly wrong about their perception of what Obama would be.
That all changed on inauguration day.
Once Obama became President, it was full throttle to the floor, petal to the metal if you will, with the socialist agenda.
You take Conservatives to task because you say some Conservatives said they would not be critical of Obama (a general summary by me of what your sentiment seems to be), but you forget that the Obama between Nov 5 and inauguration day is the Obama that Conservatives who did express those thoughts were applying those thoughts to.
But the Obama now is not the same Obama that existed between Nov 5 and Jan 20.
The Obama now is the Obama that Conservatives said was there before and warned about before.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 12:03pm
antisocialist,
You said "......I always am prepared to lose everything, including my life rather than be dependent on govt run or controlled programs....."
That same sentiment is expressed on the license plates in New Hampshire, that say "Live Free or Die".
I have to believe that some libs that live in New Hampshire must hate having that on their license plates, and some probably try to tape it over, if they can get away with it.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 12:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 11:27am
Wow, I'll bet El Salvador is chomping at the bit to welcome you as an immigrant. A retired part time insurance salesman with gardening skills. A national treasure to be sure.
Posted by Sorelish at 04/15/2009 @ 12:19pm
We are dependent on govt for all kinds of things, aren't we?
What universe do these people live in?
Posted by FDR43 at 04/15/2009 @ 12:19pm
Do we need to wait for new legislation for this "new" economy? Let's boycott the big banks and lending institutions that got us into this mess. Let's put our money into small and diverse institutions. Money speaks louder than a phone call to your local representative!
Posted by Hood203 at 04/15/2009 @ 12:22pm
The Obama now is the Obama that Conservatives said was there before and warned about before.----Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 12:03pm
So why are you expecting a different result NOW?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 12:28pm
In Obama's speech yesterday, I heard a conservative talking and not a Progressive. Instead of going after corporate welfare in the government which is the real reason behind the deficit , Obama went after Social Security and Medicare. The only thing wrong with Medicare is that Bush, along with the rest of the government, turned the drug program into a cash cow for the drug industry. It is also clear he supports Neo-liberal , "Free Trade" policies, which, with the destruction of consumer based markets, is in a death spiral. While I would have liked the Obama Administration to be a success, but it is going to fail because , like the Bush Administration, It supports the anarchy of laissez-faire capitalism.
Posted by pjcasey at 04/15/2009 @ 12:38pm
The Obama now is the Obama that Conservatives said was there before and warned about before.----Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 12:03pm
Really?
See, I remember warnings about ACORN, social programs for the poor running amok, communists infiltrating the halls of govt.
I do not remember many conservatives warning about Obama propping up the banking industry. Propping up the capitalist system to help stave off it's collapse.
what's your Plan to save the economy, SJ?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 1:18pm
"It is unfortunate that the US along with other countries have adopted many socialist programs to pacify rather than educate the citizenry on the importance of self-reliance. "anti-World
so, after tens of thousands of years of evolution in govt, every indsutrialized country has adopted some form of capitalism/socialism with the ratio's varying by about 10-15%.
Not one country that exhibits modern civilization has adopted your philosophy. Not one country has been formed and run by those that desire to see a society free from the chains of "tyranny" by governments. When these countries do appear on the world stage, countries where the strong survive and the weak perish, where those that are not smart or strong enough to pick themselves up by boot straps, and where no government builds basic infrastructure...we call those "failed states" and you and yours clamor for nation building from our government to keep the Somalias from spreading.
And you accuse the "left" of wanting a utopia!!
Too damn funny.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 1:24pm
I think we are all agreed that using tax money to bail out AIG types sticks in our craws.
How did we get here?
Not one con has addressed the issue of campaign reform. Obama, and McCain and Bush and Dodd and Gramm, were all bought and paid for by the people that have their hands out for our money.
When this issue was brought up in the past the conservatives were the most vocally opposed to keeping these people from expressing their right to "free speech", aka legal graft.
SURPRISE!
This is what you get when money=free speech.
republicans and dems are EQUALLY to blame.
Accept your part and move on from the victimhood mentality you have grown.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 1:28pm
Posted by Sorelish at 04/15/2009 @ 12:19pm
oooh, boy. The hypocrisy of Luvvy knows few bounds.
He is opposed to taxes, but makes income from "doing taxes".
He opposes most govt regulation, yet makes money selling insurance so that people can abide by those damn regulations.
Perfectly acceptable to seek gains where one can. But, to have ones hand out while deriding the process that creates that income...hypocrisy.
It would be like me getting a no-bid defense contract.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 1:33pm
Posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 1:33pm
He's a "libertarian", who supports powers for the President that are not specifically expressed in the Constitution...like the power to start a war.
He "hates religious bigotry", when somebody says something against evanglical right-wing Christianity....but he feels free to besmirch Muslims and Mormons.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 1:39pm
"We need to make banks the servants--not the masters--of our economy."
Well said. And the ONLY way to make this happen is by ridding our country of centralized banks - the first one that needs to go is the BIGGEST and most EVIL of all the banks, the PRIVATE (Not-S0-Federal) "federal" reserve (with no reserves either) bank.
The Fed Res is (illegally) printing our money - read the Constitution of the U.S. - Article 1 Section 8. Only Congress shall have the power to coin and regulate the value of our money - while the Fed Res is ALSO Charging us Interest on OUR OWN MONEY! This is the Biggest Scam in the history of America! Oh and "coincidentally" Income Tax only started the Same Year the Fed Res was created, 1913 (do some research folks).
Oh, and the "federal" reserve is apparently Above the Law according to Alan Greenspan (an Obama advisor and former Fed Res President) and the Fed Res has NEVER Been Audited - but there is a new Bill out that can change all that, HR 1207 - look it up.
And, on April 25th at 11 am, all across the USA at all the Fed Res institutes, there will be a Rally to End the Fed - I would recommend everyone supporting that and joining in on the Rally. This is the ONLY way to not only save the Economy, but to End the WARS.
Oh and may I also suggest you google the films "Money Masters" & "Fiat Empire" these two documentaries will give you a good understanding of how our financial system works and the evils/dangers of the "federal" reserve banking cartel.
please visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
Posted by kristofeR! at 04/15/2009 @ 1:44pm
crabwalk,
You asked me "....what's your Plan to save the economy, SJ?...."
Why not try this?
How To Boost The Economy By Rep. Eric Cantor February 15, 2009 http://republicanwhip.house.gov /blog/2009/02/ cantor-op-ed-how-to -boost-the-economy.html
(my link may contain blank spaces that need to be taken out)
I know Darladoon, you do not lower taxes you are supposed to raise taxes, I know, I know, my God Almighty I know.... yes JakobFabian, I know you have explained to me why tax rates need to go up because if the wealthy can pay tax they should pay more tax and they must pay more tax and yes, (I don't remember who now) the important thing is that tax rates be in "balance" so people do not get upset like they did during the French Revolution....
Yes, Phil McCrevice, I am aware that I am an assclown who is influenced by neocons and neoclowns..
And yes, Mask, Rush just called me and told me to place this article on the Nation website or I won't get my Ruths Chris steak tonight.
And yes, I don't know who (yet to be determined) I should not be eating steak I should be vegetarian.
I am just venting. One has to do this every now and then after one has been blogging on The Nation website.
Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 2:13pm
posted by crabwalk at 04/15/2009 @ 1:33pm
Yes, LvL brings so much to the table. Once in El Salvador the part time maid he may or may not be capable of hiring, is likely to inspire that govt to court thousands like himself to stimulate their economy.
Who needs factories & assembly plants when you've got hordes of old farts living under cabanas needing domestics.
Posted by Sorelish at 04/15/2009 @ 2:17pm
Yes, LvL brings so much to the table. Once in El Salvador the part time maid he may or may not be capable of hiring, is likely to inspire that govt to court thousands like himself to stimulate their economy.
Who needs factories & assembly plants when you've got hordes of old farts living under cabanas needing domestics.
Posted by Sorelish at 04/15/2009 @ 2:17pm
it must be difficult being so ignorant and still trying to be relevant?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 2:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 2:21pm
Careful. You've liable to be "raptured" at any minute. Are you wearing clean underwear? Don't want any embarrassment. Do we?
Posted by Sorelish at 04/15/2009 @ 2:40pm
Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 2:13pm
SJ, Rush doesn't have to call you. You've got it down by heart at this point.
1. Cite Walter Williams/Thomas Sowell.
2. Discuss your in-depth knowledge of "the Left".
3. Mention Jimmy Carter on the topic of Democratic economics, but never Bill Clinton.
4. Say "that was no budget cut, just a reduction in the amount of growth" when the topic is domestic spending.
5. Say "It's a MASSIVE gutting of our defenses" when the topic is a reduction in the amount of growth in defense spending.
6. Cite breaking news from Drudge and FNC.
7. If you must criticize Bush, mention the Medicare Drug Plan...otherwise he was the greatest President since Reagan.
8. Mention Reagan a lot, but never the stuff like wanting to get rid of all nukes or raising corporate taxes in 1986.
9. Deny global warming is even real and pretend more than 10% of America is with you on that.
10. Hypocritically point out things like "obsessing over hating the President" when Dubya was in office...while obsessing over hating Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
(Rinse, Lather, Repeat)
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 2:45pm
Careful. You've liable to be "raptured" at any minute. Are you wearing clean underwear? Don't want any embarrassment. Do we?
Posted by Sorelish at 04/15/2009 @ 2:40pm
How could I be embarrassed in heaven? I won't even have a thought about this world.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 2:59pm
And why do I say I won't have any thoughts of this world?
Revelation 21:3,4
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 3:01pm |
Ahh....the big rock candy mountain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4rG5nB7wB0
Posted by snowball666 at 04/15/2009 @ 3:55pm
An interesting attempt, but it doesn't get there. The focus of his song is a hobo's paradise.
there is not mention of G-d there, so it would be a fool's paradise
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 3:59pm
Mask,
Enlighten me. Why are Dr. Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell invalid sources on the subject of economics?
Now, you will parse words and say you never said they were invalid, you were just saying that I am a puppet of Rush by citing them as economic sources.
But you must think they are invalid sources, because otherwise you would not be bringing them up at all.
This whole game you play is to make it appear I have no validity and am a mind numbed robot of Rush, I am not thinking for myself.
But if you agreed with Rush and people who have had any association with Rush (trust me- someday you will convert and admit you have seen the light and are now a "dittohead") than you would certainly not be plowing the ground you are plowing.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but both Dr. Williams and Mr. Sowell had lengthy careers long before Rush Limbaugh came on the scene.
Their jobs and writings and opinions were long established. Because they lean conservative, they have appeared on Rush's show and guest hosted for Rush on occasion.
Now, as part of an effort to drill into your mind, and take apart whatver weak positions and arguments you have, maybe you can answer questions like:
- Independent of any connection either man has had with Rush, what do you think of what Dr. Williams or Mr. Sowell has to say?
- Do you even know what they have to say?
- Is your only awareness of them the connection to Rush?
- If you think either Dr. Williams or Mr. Sowell or both are wrong about their economic writing, what are your counter-arguments?
P.S. I'm just amusing myself right now and wasting time, because I am never going to get answers to any of these questions! You still owe me answers about WXYZ in Detroit, which I will never get either
Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:04pm
I wouldn't count on today's poll. Americans are JUST NOW realizing that the expanded role of government is not doing anything helpful.
Banks are RAISING interest rates and credit card rates. Mortgage companies are NOT extending help to mortgagees who are on unemployment or anyone who could not otherwise refinance themselves. Banks are ELIMINATING lines of credit. Rules and regulations for banks ARE NOT being put into place. States are CUTTING education budgets, not expanding, and are LAYING OFF teachers again (FL, CA). And they are TORTURING AGAIN at Guantanamo.
It's going to take few more weeks for the above to sink in.
Instead of making fun of these people in the tea parties, I would encourage politicians to look into their eyes and have sympathy or be very uncomfortable. Empty speeches are just making things worse.
Posted by tropical at 04/15/2009 @ 4:09pm
An interesting attempt, but it doesn't get there. The focus of his song is a hobo's paradise.
there is not mention of G-d there, so it would be a fool's paradise
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That seems to be EXACTLY what Obamanation and the Demoncrats are promising everyone! Funny, how so many actually believe it!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/15/2009 @ 5:04pm
First of all, I have no idea where either you Repubs or Dems studied recent Amer History, but you need to get your facts straight before you start being critical about posts that mention the Bush Admin "control of Congress (which implies House and Senat) " that people on the right just go along with and those on the left just accept as truth (much like how evil Haliburton is, a corporation I remind you).
Bush was never in control of the Senate -Right after his election in '00, Jim Jefferts (R) Vermont became Jim Jefferts (D)Vermont which led Harry Reid to start demanding power sharing in choice of Committee chairmanships, throwing a 51-49 Repub Majority, into a 50-50 even split with VP Cheney having the ability to only break tie votes - certainly not "control". Bush never came close to a filibuster proof Senate. Then began the decline of Repub Senate seats, culminating in '04 and '06, Dems in control of the Senate. Leading to '08 Complete Dem control and close to if not effective filibuster proof Congress.
As to this ridiculous piece by Comrade Vanden Huvel, I was always told if you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all. So I will be nice and say nothing. I will however remind her what Pres. Kennedy said - a rising tide lifts all ships ... and since she has made a biblical reference (will this religious reference cost you an invite to this weekends cocktail patys???) I believe Jesus also mentioned teaching people to fish as opposed to giving them fish in that sermon. You should know that which you reference before you use it as your title.
Posted by iliketurtles20 at 04/15/2009 @ 6:13pm
So he's now officially competing with Christ? What's next - the Barry Soetoro Beatitudes?
Give me a f*()*^&ing break. As for Ms. vanden Heuvel, you want some coffee for that cream in your Levis?
Posted by elephant4life at 04/15/2009 @ 7:50pm
Yes, but I continue to dialogue with you despite this shortcoming on your part.
Sarcasm aside, my point in the response to dancing-laughter was that he/she had nothing to base that conclusion on from what I posted.
I understood Lincoln's purpose very well. I certainly don't require some unknown blogger to help me understand Lincoln. I was studying him probably before your mother was born.
I've been to the Lincoln home in Sprinfield. I've read Lincoln now for nearly 60 years.
Like DL, you are merely posturing out of a dismissive leftist arrogance.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/15/2009 @ 10:27am
I'm not posturing about anything. You call me arrogant HA! I would say on this board with way you speak so dismissively to everyone you are one of the most arrogant people on here bud. You act as if yours is the only opinion that is right or matters. Last I checked that is the meaning of arrogance. I simply said what I said not in response to you just in a general comment to anyone. So if you want to insult me go ahead I don't care. People are always arrogant on the internet. Anonymity tends to breed that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 8:04pm
Revvy! The Lairrr man. Antisoshio...
Lincoln's govt gave us racial equality under law (the beginnings). Are you really going to take this government hand out??? A true libertarian would reject it and go buy a human on the free libertarian market.
He wouldn't dare use the internet, which evolved largely out of DOD, NASA and other big government programs!
Nor drive on the interstate highway system.
Nor eat fruit inspected by the FDA.
You're no more independent of government than your heart is independent of your anus. One body, one world. Gots to carry each other baby. But anyway, all your haughty freedom fries junk food of the mind is eternally amusing. Keep it up since you can't stop the high, the beauty, the purity. Oh righteous one!
Posted by winyahn at 04/15/2009 @ 10:10pm
Katrina. You must be awfully gullible to believe that there's any connection with Obama's oratory and what he's actually gonna do. He's proven over and over to be a liar. He's been very consistent in saying one thing publicly and then later doing the exact OPPOSITE. He's just the next pawn in line who we call Mr. President. The country is run by the corporations.
Posted by sedonabruce at 04/15/2009 @ 10:44pm
Katrina Vanden Heuval has really sucked down the Koolaide. Some friends or family members should hire a deprogramer and help her get out of the "Cult of the Obama". Obama wants us to accept an Economic Foundation of more spending, taxes, debt, and printed money than anyone has ever tried in the history of the world. And Ms Vanden Heuval is just Giddy!
Posted by valwayne at 04/15/2009 @ 11:03pm
cookiecutterT.O.D.s
big yawn
Posted by winyahn at 04/15/2009 @ 11:11pm
"Sermon on the Mount"??? What? When are you moron leftists going to keep your religion out of my government? Isn't that what you morons are always spouting? Except when it is your messiah doing the sermonizing, obviously. Leftists suck, and Obama is the biggest sucker among you. Too bad we will all pay for your stupidity.
Posted by specialk1216 at 04/16/2009 @ 05:53am
Leftists suck, and Obama is the biggest sucker among you. Too bad we will all pay for your stupidity.
Posted by specialk1216 at 04/16/2009 @ 05:53am
You proof that you have the mental capactiy of a 6 year old. Take your derogatory statements and worthless opinions elsewhere.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 06:14am
Collectivists believe in a static, zero-sum world in which one person's gain must necessarily come at the expense of someone else.
The only possibility they can see in any self-interested economic transaction , therefore, is that one person must be sacrificed; either the ‘strong' person to the ‘weak' – which they call ‘social justice', among other things – or the ‘weak' person to the ‘strong' – which they call capitalism. They believe that they are being righteous by consistently advocating the sacrifice of the ‘strong' person to the ‘weak'. This is why, as Hoenig insightfully points out, "for collectivists, sacrifice is seen as absolute." It's simply the unspoken, underlying logic of the zero-sum collectivist worldview. This worldview has its basis in the roots of human tribal evolution in the Paleolithic era, when the world very nearly was a zero-sum place.
What Rand, and Hoenig, understand is that this is an outdated, primitive, regressive worldview. It misses the glaring fact that human wealth is created, not plucked from trees, hunted in the field, or stolen from a neighboring tribe. And it is created by the human mind, which is an attribute of the individual. As Hoenig eloquently states in this piece, Capitalism is the system based on individual rights. It is the system in which the sacrifice of one to another through the initiation of force – especially by government – is banned, and in which each person may deal with another only through voluntary agreement and trade, to mutual advantage and to mutual benefit.
What we have – and have had for over a century – in this country, is certainly not such a system.
Posted by AndThenDepressionSetIn at 04/16/2009 @ 06:59am
Funny that "the system we have had for a century" is either socialist bad or not Randian enough...yet we are still the strongest economy in the world with the largest military.
i am still really amused by those that supported (with zero dissent allowed) socialism for Iraq, with my money, at cost-plus, no oversight to the tune of Trillions of tax payer dollars...
but socialism that benefits Americans is bad juju.
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/16/2009 @ 07:30am
If memory serves, Nash equilibria depend upon several assumptions, among which are : demonstrated intellectual capability, openly shared algorithim(s) du jour, consistent/reproducible operational logic, and the absence of so-called "dynamic inconsistencies" - eg, " I oppose racism absolutely - but spend 20 years of my life bathing in the racist ranting of Jeremiah Wright." Unfortunately, I see no evidence of any of these components here, particularly in the meanderings of crustaceans or satanic slushies above,
Posted by synaptickillfile at 04/16/2009 @ 11:50pm
Myopia does not explain the inability to see things that simply aren't present. However, there is a term for the ability to see things that aren't there: American progressivism. And, SB, one embarrassing example of a strong Pareto optimum - one person gets all, and the rest have none. This is approximated by the relationship between George Soros and the cretin farm known as moveon.org.
Posted by synaptickillfile at 04/17/2009 @ 9:38pm
Your point about equilibrium is well made. It is preceded by the obligatory distortion of my original point - that the arbitrary components of Nash equilibria are very often lacking in the edifice of American progressivism - of which" The Nation" is a part. You have grasped Mr. Soros' methods also; unfortunately, most of your hypoxic confreres have not. Perhaps that is the "hellish locale" you made reference to...
Posted by synaptickillfile at 04/18/2009 @ 12:32am
"Sermon on the Mount"??? What? When are you moron leftists going to keep your religion out of my government?
Posted by specialk1216 at 04/16/2009 @ 05:53am | ignore this person | warn this person
OOOOOh, I'm filing this one for future use. One of our neocon friends wanting Religion kept out of it.
Good Stuff.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/20/2009 @ 5:16pm