Also, stream-of-consciousness-wise, me and my local comrade buddy met this kid, last summer I think, who was all up on his Krugman and Richard Wolff and he's probably reading Picketty now, but anyway, he'd been reading Jacobin and whatnot and was all like, "But, communism, really? The dictatorship of the proletariat?" And me and my local comrade, in our workboots and crappy company-provided workpants nodded our heads enthusiastically in the Dunkin Donuts lobby, and were like, "Yeah, it's the only way."
Anyway, he went back out to school, and organized all of his friends to go and help occupy the North Adams Regional Hospital when the bastards shut it down (people have to drive an hour and a half to the nearest emergency room, I hear) but then I went to the recent Regional Day School and sat in on an Introduction to Marxist Economics course and he was asking questions like "But, communism, really? The dictatorship of the proletariat?" (Nods head, "Yeah, it's the only way.")
So, to get to the point, he's back in town for a month before he goes to f&@%ing France for a summer semester where he'll probably run into Comrade le Couard and come back talking about Keynsianism again. So me and my local comrade were like, what should we make him read?
And I was like, boo-yah!, "Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg.
"It's all about the rise of reformism and the 'politics of the possible' in German Social-Democracy and how revolutionary Marxism is the only road forward. Huzzah! Later, of course, the reformist German social-democrats murdered her, but, uh, anyway, we should make him read it."
Anyway, it was only later I realized that if we're going to make him read it, that we'd have to read it, too.
I don't know how I'm ever going to get Saturday night's game ready.
(Edited)
Later, I remember seeing George II going on about it during one of his drives to gut SS or raid it or whatever he was up to, I don't remember, so I assumed it was true.
Yes; he was actually trying to raid it (roll the bonds themselves into the general treasury), not simply prevent them from paying out. People who had contributed to SS would receive a one-time cash payment equivalent to the actuarial value of the money they'd already contributed. The source of funds for that payment were never made clear and knowing George involved magic pixies, but assuming more sense on the part of his handlers, it would have been from a one-time appropriation from the general fund, essentially the same procedure as when a company moves from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-contribution plan and buys out the current benefit-holders.
and poops Leonidas chocolate truffles. And that pony doesn't just fly, it teleports.Quote:
I'm also amused that with your talk of "art of the possible", that you ignored my actual first choice: Shoring up Social Security by fixing the income inequality problem and growing the economy. I guess that's even more of flying pony. Maybe this one pees 30-year old Scotch.Just jumping back to this for a moment, since it's the real problem and without addressing it all the other fixes are just fiddling with the margins. If this really is that far out there, then the Goblin's socialist revolution is the only answer.
Or, alternatively, you need to accept the fact that sometimes the political process will not deliver everything that you want.
At some fundamental level, all of politics is "just fiddling with the margins." If you allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, you will never achieve the good.
But I don't actually think that's true. We've been worse before and managed to get out of it. I haven't given up on it yet.
"The leadership has failed. Even so, the leadership can and must be recreated from the masses and out of the masses. The masses are the decisive element, they are the rock on which the final victory of the revolution will be built. The masses were on the heights; they have developed this 'defeat' into one of the historical defeats which are the pride and strength of international socialism. And that is why the future victory will bloom from this 'defeat'.
'Order reigns in Berlin!' You stupid henchmen! Your 'order' is built on sand. Tomorrow the revolution will already 'raise itself with a rattle' and announce with fanfare, to your terror:I was, I am, I shall be!"
--Last known words of Rosa Luxemburg
[Cries]
This is called Austerity thinking and its a time proven method for making downturns worse. Reduced spending puts more people out of work with less money to spend and reinforces the situation that put the econonmy on skeds in the first place.
It's tempting to think that a country's budget is something you manage like that of a family's. It's also deadly wrong.
I didn't say I agreed with that position...I said it was what I considered to be a reasonable fiscally conservative position. As for reducing spending, did you miss the part about "we should save during periods of prosperity to build a cushion against future recession?"
Seriously, though...in a world where people are actually advocating capital gains taxes of zero, or eliminating the DOE, FDA, etc., is the desire to avoid government borrowing really that unreasonable? :)
Here is what I'd consider a reasonable, fiscally conservative position:
This is called Austerity thinking and its a time proven method for making downturns worse. Reduced spending puts more people out of work with less money to spend and reinforces the situation that put the econonmy on skeds in the first place.
It's tempting to think that a country's budget is something you manage like that of a family's. It's also deadly wrong.
You got to spend money to make money.
Deficit spending is bad. But I think we should be looking at more long term strategies.
Me, too.
Seriously, though...in a world where people are actually advocating capital gains taxes of zero, or eliminating the DOE, FDA, etc., is the desire to avoid government borrowing really that unreasonable? :)
Well, if a household economist said "you shouldn't borrow money," I'd think they were an unreasonable lunatic. Borrowing money is a very useful tool -- without it, you probably can't get a college education, a house, or provide for emergencies. It's also hard to get a reliable car or to start a business.
While it's all very well and good to waggle your fingers and say "well, everyone should have a six month emergency reserve saved up," the simple fact is that most people don't, and they still have to be able to handle emergencies. And saying "you should only buy something if you can pay cash for it" is terrible piece of financial advice to give if you're trying to encourage entrepreneurship.
So, basically, if you told me-as-a-person to avoid borrowing money, I'd think you were unreasonable.
The downsides of the United States deficit spending are a lot less than the downsides of an individual person overborrowing, because individuals can't print money. The government can, and it's simply inflationary.
So if you give that advice to a country, you're even less reasonable than if you tell it to me to my face.
While it's all very well and good to waggle your fingers and say "well, everyone should have a six month emergency reserve saved up," the simple fact is that most people don't, and they still have to be able to handle emergencies.
Particularly impossible if they only make $8.00 an hour.
|
I understand that you want to make fun of Gore, but couldn't you try a bit harder to come up with something plausible?Perhaps ripping on hypothetical president Gore provides a much-needed break from ripping on president Obama.Yeah, sadly- but Obama has done real things that happened in the real world that people could complain about. People still make up things to get angry about. :/
He is NOT an atheist-Muslim lizardperson. He is someone who has a questionable amount of respect for the 4th Amendment. Which one do you see people talking about?
He isn't up to the task, he's a poor "constitutional scholar" is his track record so far is any indication, and he is shielded from any hard core criticism from the mainstream press not because he's a Democrat (Clinton, a MUCH better president took a hell of a lot more heat from the press), but because the three major networks, quite a few of the news papers and a few of the cable news outlets are run by, editorially controlled by, or employ a bunch of people who either served in his admin or are married to people that serve/d in his admin. Quite a bit of the press will never call him out, too many people are either true believers or want that paycheck from the spouse working for the guy.
The problem is, when critics from THE LEFT are shouted down by his Democratic party voting sycophants.
Gore never came to power, so we'll never know, but he's kind of a weenie and couldn't hold Clinton's used toilet paper, so I don't think he would
have been much better than Bush or Obama, to be frank.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He isn't up to the task, he's a poor "constitutional scholar" is his track record so far is any indication, and he is shielded from any hard core criticism from the mainstream press not because he's a Democrat (Clinton, a MUCH better president took a hell of a lot more heat from the press), but because the three major networks, quite a few of the news papers and a few of the cable news outlets are run by, editorially controlled by, or employ a bunch of people who either served in his admin or are married to people that serve/d in his admin. Quite a bit of the press will never call him out, too many people are either true believers or want that paycheck from the spouse working for the guy.
Yeah, sadly- but Obama has done real things that happened in the real world that people could complain about. People still make up things to get angry about. :/
He is NOT an atheist-Muslim lizardperson. He is someone who has a questionable amount of respect for the 4th Amendment. Which one do you see people talking about?
I'm more worried that he isn't that bad a Constitutional scholar... And is pulling this }%~€ anyway. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gore never came to power, so we'll never know, but he's kind of a weenie and couldn't hold Clinton's used toilet paper, so I don't think he would
have been much better than Bush or Obama, to be frank.
I'm pretty sure Gore would have probably heeded the warnings that Bush ignored, and 9-11 would likely have been foiled.
Bush and co. were planning to invade Iraq before they even got into office, and Gore wasn't involved with PNAC. So, if Gore hadn't been able to stop 9-11, he still wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and millions of lives would not have been shattered.
He would instead have used the world's sympathy to get their help in going after the terrorists, and would have succeeded.
Gore isn't Bush, and that alone makes him the better man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He isn't up to the task, he's a poor "constitutional scholar" is his track record so far is any indication, and he is shielded from any hard core criticism from the mainstream press not because he's a Democrat
He;s not shielded from criticism. He's shielded from genuine criticism because the things he's doing wrong are things the right wants done. In order to let their grarg out the right has to make stuff up.
He isn't up to the task, he's a poor "constitutional scholar" is his track record so far is any indication,
We're talking about the guy who literally taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, yes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, statements like "he's not up to the task" are not critisisms, its just an insult. Its non specific, non provable, non disprovable cutting remark that says.. absolutely nothing other than I don't like you. It completely evades facts, which the right already has a problem with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Gore won:
9/11 still happens but only the first plane makes it to the tower, the rest are shot down. Republicans cry foul.
Osama bin Laden is dead 12/11
Government moves to protect Napster and file sharing sites from RIAA bs. (at least I'd hope)
Cars made before 1985' have to under go a modification to limit their emissions. (car enthusiasts cry foul.)
North Korea is choked into collapse after multi nation deal with China, S.Korea, and Russia. North Korea is carved up and turned into an international trade center, like a nation sized Hong Kong.
Koch Brothers and their companies go out of business saving lives of millions
Monsanto goes too.
Because of fair business regulations and a fair pay act combined with a ban on price increases the stock market doesn't collapse. Avg income for a family of 4 goes to 85,000K a year, almost double over the minimum needed.
Because of regulations and government lookouts, changes are made to bring United States health care to mirror Germanys.
United States becomes a nation in the top tens for health care, ease of living, environment, and safety.
Next gen fighters like the F-22 never see the light of day saving billions. Soldiers get power armor instead, from the massive reinvestment into protecting ground troops.
Astronauts land on Mars by 2008
John Kerry is elected after Gore's 2 term an though most of the nation considers him the war hero he really is, a small contingent of Republicans are found out, trying to make up stuff to defame him and are all laughed off by the media.
Fox News folds. Cartoon Network buys rights to the Simpsons, and Firefly goes to Sci-Fi where it has an 8 season run and 3 spin offs.
During this time Barack Obama takes the reins of the United Nations, and announces the groundwork to a one world nation.
In 2014 a stupid rancher has all his cattle taken because he is an ignorant fool. No one comes to his aid, and he has to pay his fines like he should.
Fox News folds. Cartoon Network buys rights to the Simpsons, and Firefly goes to Sci-Fi where it has an 8 season run and 3 spin offs.
you had me going for the no iraq war thing but for THIS we must find a way to bend spacetime!
|
|
He isn't up to the task, he's a poor "constitutional scholar" is his track record so far is any indication,We're talking about the guy who literally taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, yes?
He was literally a lecturer, he didn't actually have a class. He also has zero, that is, NO, peer reviewed legal treatises to his name. His job at the law firm in Chicago was basically a no-show job (no briefs in his name, zero court room time). He was just a very prominent name for the letterhead.
My point is, for a dude that focused on Constitutional law, he sure doesn't mind continuing his predecessor's incredibly unconstitutional (in my opinion) practices.
I know you like the guy, Scott, but he isn't very good at his job. Just about all of his foreign policy decisions have ended poorly. He, unlike Clinton and Reagan (#1 and #2 for being "effective" presidents, both of whom somehow managed to work with VERY hostile congresses and get at least most of what they wanted), either refuses to even try, or seriously has no idea what compromise means. And if I hear him say "Make No Mistake About It'/'Let Me Be Perfectly Clear" one more time, I'm going to kick a puppy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fox News folds. Cartoon Network buys rights to the Simpsons, and Firefly goes to Sci-Fi where it has an 8 season run and 3 spin offs.you had me going for the no iraq war thing but for THIS we must find a way to bend spacetime!
remove that last, and I'm all abord the tardis.
Fox News folds. Cartoon Network buys rights to the Simpsons, and Firefly goes to Sci-Fi where it has an 8 season run and 3 spin offs.you had me going for the no iraq war thing but for THIS we must find a way to bend spacetime!
remove that last, and I'm all aboard the tardis.
He isn't up to the task, he's a poor "constitutional scholar" is his track record so far is any indication,We're talking about the guy who literally taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, yes?He was literally a lecturer, he didn't actually have a class. He also has zero, that is, NO, peer reviewed legal treatises to his name. His job at the law firm in Chicago was basically a no-show job (no briefs in his name, zero court room time). He was just a very prominent name for the letterhead.
My point is, for a dude that focused on Constitutional law, he sure doesn't mind continuing his predecessor's incredibly unconstitutional (in my opinion) practices.
I know you like the guy, Scott, but he isn't very good at his job. Just about all of his foreign policy decisions have ended poorly. He, unlike Clinton and Reagan (#1 and #2 for being "effective" presidents, both of whom somehow managed to work with VERY hostile congresses and get at least most of what they wanted), either refuses to even try, or seriously has no idea what compromise means. And if I hear him say "Make No Mistake About It'/'Let Me Be Perfectly Clear" one more time, I'm going to kick a puppy.
You lost me at the Clinton/Regan comparison.
He was literally a lecturer, he didn't actually have a class.
The term "lecturer", in academia, typically refers to teaching faculty that does not enjoy the benefits of a professorship. It doesn't mean they don't teach a class. Roughly half of my upper division courses this term are being taught by lecturers.
You lost me at the Clinton/Regan comparison.
I know you like the guy, Scott, but he isn't very good at his job. Just about all of his foreign policy decisions have ended poorly. He, unlike Clinton and Reagan (#1 and #2 for being "effective" presidents, both of whom somehow managed to work with VERY hostile congresses and get at least most of what they wanted), either refuses to even try, or seriously has no idea what compromise means.
Yeah, me too. Also, I'm surprised, HD. I mean, it's not like you're the guy who introduced me to Glen Ford or anything.
|
|
"Effective". They both, for better or worse, got things done, even though both had to deal with a Congress controlled by the other side. I never said either was "good", though I 'd say Clinton had a pretty good economy and managed to get a few things through a hostile congress.
Also, how much time, exactly, did Obama have to teach between his no show law firm job and his state Senate duties? I took a class "taught" by Paul Chu, and saw the guy exactly once the entire semester. So, that also means little.
|
|
I lived through both the Reagan and the Clinton years, though I was more politically aware by the latter, and neither of them had "VERY hostile congresses" by today's standards. Unprecedented hostility at the time (at least Clinton's and at least for the modern era), but Obama's has been off the scale. And that is not due to a lack of compromise on his part. A very common criticism of Obama from the liberal side is that he compromises far too much and still gets nothing out of it.He isn't up to the task, he's a poor "constitutional scholar" is his track record so far is any indication,We're talking about the guy who literally taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, yes?He was literally a lecturer, he didn't actually have a class. He also has zero, that is, NO, peer reviewed legal treatises to his name. His job at the law firm in Chicago was basically a no-show job (no briefs in his name, zero court room time). He was just a very prominent name for the letterhead.
My point is, for a dude that focused on Constitutional law, he sure doesn't mind continuing his predecessor's incredibly unconstitutional (in my opinion) practices.
I know you like the guy, Scott, but he isn't very good at his job. Just about all of his foreign policy decisions have ended poorly. He, unlike Clinton and Reagan (#1 and #2 for being "effective" presidents, both of whom somehow managed to work with VERY hostile congresses and get at least most of what they wanted), either refuses to even try, or seriously has no idea what compromise means. And if I hear him say "Make No Mistake About It'/'Let Me Be Perfectly Clear" one more time, I'm going to kick a puppy.
That criticism is from the Democrat side. The liberals who aren't Democrats think he's no better than Bush.
Agreed, thejeff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I have not spoken much about the second half of Obama’s first term in office. That is the period when the Left generally becomes disgusted with what they call his excessive 'compromises' and 'cave-ins' to Republicans. But that is a profoundly wrong reading of reality. Obama was simply continuing down his own Road to Austerity – the one he, himself, had initiated before even taking office. The only person caving in and compromising to the Republicans, was the Obama that many of YOU made up in your heads."
Down with Obama!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I think Obama's a lot better than Bush. On both domestic and foreign policy issues. I also think he's far to the right of where I'd want him to be domestically and far more militaristic than I'd like. I also think he's been handicapped by the most obstructive Congress in my lifetime and longer and that he spent far too long compromising and treating the Republican Party as rational...Yup. I think he knew he'd be blindsided, but he did manage to slowly draw down the wars-for-profit, kinda.
Pivot to Asia, Africom and drone strikes, huzzah!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Compromise is giving the republicans everything they want. Nothing else will do.
I know, if the Republicans would just compromise we can finally get Obama's Grand Bargain and slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"But I want to pause right here, because piling up facts on Obama’s Most Effective Evils doesn’t seem to do any good if the prevailing conversation isn’t really about facts – but about intentions.
"The prevailing assumption on the Left is that Obama has good intentions. He intends to the Right Thing – or, at least, he intends to do better than the Republicans intend to do. It’s all supposed to be about intentions. Let’s be clear: There is absolutely no factual basis to believe he intends to do anything other than the same thing he has already done, whether Democrats control Congress or not, which is to serve Wall Street’s most fundamental interests.
"But, the whole idea of debating Obama’s intentions is ridiculous. It’s psycho-babble, not analysis. No real Left would engage in it.
"I have no doubt that New Gingrich and Republicans in general have worse intentions for the future of my people – of Black people – than Michelle Obama’s husband does. But, that doesn’t matter. Black people are not going to roll over for whatever nightmarish Apocalypse the sick mind of Newt Gingrich would like to bring about. But, they have already rolled over for Obama’s economic Apocalypse in Black America. There was been very little resistance. Which is just another way of saying that Obama has successfully blunted any retribution by organized African America against the corporate powers that have devastated and destabilized Black America in ways that have little precedence in modern times."
Wow...
Clinton, NAFTA and Obama's Intentions
Also, what's Thom Hartmann doing on Kremlin-funded propaganda?
"But I want to pause right here, because piling up facts on Obama’s Most Effective Evils doesn’t seem to do any good if the prevailing conversation isn’t really about facts – but about intentions.
"The prevailing assumption on the Left is that Obama has good intentions. He intends to the Right Thing – or, at least, he intends to do better than the Republicans intend to do. It’s all supposed to be about intentions. Let’s be clear: There is absolutely no factual basis to believe he intends to do anything other than the same thing he has already done, whether Democrats control Congress or not, which is to serve Wall Street’s most fundamental interests.
"But, the whole idea of debating Obama’s intentions is ridiculous. It’s psycho-babble, not analysis. No real Left would engage in it.
"I have no doubt that New Gingrich and Republicans in general have worse intentions for the future of my people – of Black people – than Michelle Obama’s husband does. But, that doesn’t matter. Black people are not going to roll over for whatever nightmarish Apocalypse the sick mind of Newt Gingrich would like to bring about. But, they have already rolled over for Obama’s economic Apocalypse in Black America. There was been very little resistance. Which is just another way of saying that Obama has successfully blunted any retribution by organized African America against the corporate powers that have devastated and destabilized Black America in ways that have little precedence in modern times."
pah. If there's one thing black people know how to do, its rebel.
If Al Gore had been elected president (note I don't say "had he gotten the most votes," as no rational, informed person disputes that he did do that), then I have no doubt that the earth would have opened up and swallowed us for our terrible sins. And let's face it, we would have had it coming.</sarcasm>
I'm a little suspicious of the idea that it's better to have Republicans in office because liberals and black people and maybe even Democrats will oppose them instead of rolling over like they do when Democrats are in power.
That kind of opposition didn't really get us very far in the Bush years. Or the Reagan/Bush era for that matter.
You'd be right to suspicious of such an idea. Does that idea come through in Brother Ford's piece? Because that's not what I get from it.
As David Dinkins said to Wall Street back in the day about attacks on unions and cutbacks: "They'll take it from me."