quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


I just happened to run across this while reading something else...  and remembered this part of this thread:

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

Hey cloud boy - Sara Palin never said she could see Russia from her house.

Yes, but your grasp of Marxism mirrors Palin's grasp of Russia.

Its best if we harken back to Palin's exact words on the subject.

Which of Marx's books have you even read?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Which of Marx's books have you even read?

quote:

Should have just nationalised those failing banks

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Which of Marx's books have you even read?

Do people still read books these days? Dont they wait for the film version?

The irony is that unless a bunch of capitalists fund the making of a profitable film of his life - replete with 19thc car chases and explosions.......... he will remain forever one of the bogey men.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So was Rush Limbaugh

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Should have just nationalised those failing banks

Yeah, there's a way to guarantee success. What could go wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Which of Marx's books have you even read?

Do people still read books these days? Dont they wait for the film version?

The irony is that unless a bunch of capitalists fund the making of a profitable film of his life - replete with 19thc car chases and explosions.......... he will remain forever one of the bogey men.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

And just because I'd like to know.. and I ask this of anyone not posting to any specific person.. What are the examples of where the trickle-down economic policy actually worked?

This is a good question--why would such a failed policy be repeated? There are actually reasons--for the conservative elite.

Remember what conservativism is (vs. the more recent rhetoric) -- protecting the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands and institutions of the established conservative elite, both through insulating them from interference and militarily promoting their interests. Then look at what happened, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II.

For the conservative elite, mission accomplished. The strata between rich and poor widened. Wealth was redistributed via unpaid tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, offset with government borrowing paid for by everyone. Sure, deficits quadrupled, but their interests were served. This borrowing also funded unpaid wars, from Central America to the Middle East. Regulations were stripped or watered down (including, unfortunately, mine safety and oil oversight). Banking got aggressive, and when its overreaching failed, the tax payers picked up the tab, from the Savings & Loan crisis to the credit crunch bailouts.

For them, government, properly controlled, is a candy store. Well established industries, from oil/gas to massive corn farming, still get heavy support--allowing people like Dubya, incidentally, to make millions even though all his businesses tanked (his brothers profited from the S&L bailout). Their "big government" rhetoric is reserved for regulation--they're not advocating returning any of the billions they're making from it, not the least of which comes from military operations.

This is why Clinton (who, other than health care, was really a rather conservative Democrat) was such a threat. He understood the economy, and when Newt rushed into town, he knew he'd need to work with him and adapted. Newt, also, despite his silly Contract with America pagent, realized he had to work with the President to get things done--and they both did, in the largest peacetime expansion in our nation's history. This, however, was reversing the gains of the conservative elite.

So they demonize government even as they use it. Find a "moral" issue, blow it out of all context, whether immigration, gay marriage, abortion, whatever, and get the voters fired up. Promise them you'll cut their taxes and usher in change (by the way--you all have been getting tax cuts since 1980 now...what have you all done with all that extra money? Just curious...).

OK, that's the past, so where do we go from here? Despite the rhetoric about Obama's administration/Congress so far, other than health care, they've continued Bush's conservative approach, protecting large financial institutions and trying to buy their way out of recession (Bush had already used up lowering interest rates in two previous recessions) and promote liquidity. Whether this was a good idea (a lot of economists say it should have gone much farther), and whether it worked (most economists say it at least helped), doesn't really matter in terms of the nation's direction, as that was/is a short term situation. Jobs will come back as inventories continue to fall and confidence/knowledge about where we are and what's coming (including adjusting to health care changes) settles down (probably starting after August--orders for durable goods and production goods are already up). So while no one likes how much we're spending, this is a blip, correctly handled or not.

This is the problem with the Teas, and why I consider their approach naive--just replace everybody, preferably with new, uncompromising conservatives, a recipe for gridlock, lax regulation, and handing the candy store keys back to the conservative elite. After all, economic woes keep people from worrying too much about keeping a closer eye on what else is happening. It also makes a labor force relatively grateful for that thankless, low paying job, as better than nothing. It's a prosperous middle class, more than anything, that keeps a close eye on misdeeds. As long as cash can still be rechanneled from taxpayers to the ruling class at the top, all is well as far they are concerned.

This is also why conservative leaders consider liberals such an obstacle--they promote individual rights, and this threatens their power structure. Consider this list of liberal achievements generated in another thread:

quote:

Yeah, I weep when I think of all those good things liberals destroyed: segregation, old-age poverty, child labor, sweatshops, malnutrition in schools...monopolies, unaffordable education through high school, extreme poverty, work place discrimination in hiring...dumping toxic waste into rivers, logging off old-growth forests, damming wild rivers, lead in gasoline, cars without seatbelts, lead paint in baby cribs....

Every one of those was opposed by the conservative structure as too costly, and you can see why--it takes money away and forces social accountability. Remember before all this, the 1890s and the early 20th century, with completely free markets--incredible monopolies, including intertwined trusts, no workplace safety at all (one in three workers died on the job), workers locked inside factories, children chained to their looms, factory workers earning 25% of what it cost to support a family--this is the conservative ideal. "Compassionate" conservatism is accepting that society has advanced, and conserving the consolidation of the wealth, power, and institutions of the ruling elite from there, while promoting its global interests at the cost of the citizenry's lives and tax dollars.

So yes, trickle-down economic policy works--for the powerful wealthy elite, and at the cost of American taxpayers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009
Surprisingly (not really) you left out this part,

Appreciating you providing an example of a "lie" versus as "bold face" lie by bolding your response. Or was it a function of selective blindness to miss that both sides were provided an equal amount of quote coverage?

Why be so shy about representing you are for a more government in the lives of citizens? The "system working" opinion, "working" defined by Mr Van de Water, as more people on the dole. You do know the difference between opinion "working" and the fact that "8 million private jobs" have been eliminated? I didn't want to point out Mr. Van de Water's position because it should generate more questions; how and why will the economy recover when the incentive set before the people is to sit home and wait on an government entitlement check or yet another government program providing less incentive to find a job while at the same time businesses are working under the promise from the Administration of more taxation and more regulation. Since you support that position perhaps you can enlighten me how Mr. Van de Water's position is anything more than hollow rhetoric?

Your other bolded position - is as any "would have been worse" representation; neither fact, nor lie, nor relevant. I put it in the same context of response to any failure that can't be excused. "It could have been worse!" is a rationalized version of "we were wrong - but we could have been wrong-er."

quote:

Do you suggest that as a nation we just throw those who have lost their jobs under the bus? We just leave them in the street hungry?

I forgot, your consistent position has been that the path taken by this Administration as the only solution. However, in the future - the people on the streets hungry will generate more head bobbing if you put it; "We just leave children in the street hungry!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I respect that you hate labeling, Merc, but a little history reminder is in order. The Federal Budget was balanced in 2000 when W became president. Massive tax cuts to stimulate the supply side were voted in by the Congress along with a medical entitlement and a war that was not budgeted.

As I respect your take on the issue. However shouldn't the question be posed to the Administration and not me? Wasn't that "history" obvious to Obama and his people when he took power?

I challenge you to point to a time when there was "unregulated capitalism". There were always regulations, and they were always compromised. Being the skeptic that I am, I say the compromised loopholes were deliberately included in the regulations. Where you lose me is the pointed fingers at one political party or one administration. I believe there were 8 years between Reagan and Bush and much of the 'Clinton-Boon' was a result of regulation loopholes as well as entitlement programs dovetailing into those regulations such as the Barney Frank "everyone should own a house" regulatory change while he was in charge of 'Fanny' & 'Freddie'.

I've always represented that smart folk work for the government to establish regulations and laws; while the smartest people are employed in the private sector figuring out ways to exploit them before the ink is dry on the Presidential signature.

quote:

articles like this try to switch the blame to public employees, pensioners, and the unemployed.

"Blame"? No. Reality, and a use of grouping that I don't infer from the article. Negotiated pensions, SS payouts, and even unemployment (except for the ongoing extension now at 99 weeks and counting!), should not be grouped with "public employees".

They are employees of a struggling business, in this case a cash strapped government. Why should they be sacrosanct to the same cuts being felt by the growing private sector unemployed? You talk about "unregulated capitalism", what label would you apply to a business entity who in the face of massive losses doesn't reduce payroll and instead goes on a hiring and spending spree? I'd use irresponsible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Ya think Reagan or W had a plan? Fucking stunning notion.

The US and the economy as it is now compares to what it was during the Reagan Administration? "Fucking stunning notion."

Or perhaps since you do compare it to Reagan - you are in favor of Obama following the Reagan play book in this case as he followed another Republican example by signing off on the Bush II 'Stimulus Program'. Better be careful with your label representations - next thing you know Obama will be running for reelection under a Republican banner! After all - as you point out - he's only doing what Reagan and Bush did. But then - how do you rationalize for the 'CHANGE!' mantra?

quote:

: cloudboy

Which of Marx's books have you even read?

quote:

Lady Ellen: Do people still read books these days? Dont they wait for the film version?

The irony is that unless a bunch of capitalists fund the making of a profitable film of his life - replete with 19thc car chases and explosions.......... he will remain forever one of the bogey men.

quote:

Musicmystery: Of course--he has been since the U.S. began to reign in conservative establishment abuses in favor of worker's rights, a shift they labeled "socialism" and a tune they've been crying since the late 19th century. Treating people reasonably is a cost to them.

Unable to put forth any actual ideas except returning their leaders to the candy store, all that's left is "Marxist" rhetoric:

quote:

Lady Ellen: And just because I'd like to know.. and I ask this of anyone not posting to any specific person.. What are the examples of where the trickle-down economic policy actually worked?

quote:

Musicmystery:
This is a good question--why would such a failed policy be repeated? There are actually reasons--for the conservative elite.

Remember what conservativism is (vs. the more recent rhetoric) -- protecting the consolidation of wealth and power in the hands and institutions of the established conservative elite, both through insulating them from interference and militarily promoting their interests. Then look at what happened, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II.

For the conservative elite, mission accomplished. The strata between rich and poor widened. Wealth was redistributed via unpaid tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, offset with government borrowing paid for by everyone. Sure, deficits quadrupled, but their interests were served. This borrowing also funded unpaid wars, from Central America to the Middle East. Regulations were stripped or watered down (including, unfortunately, mine safety and oil oversight). Banking got aggressive, and when its overreaching failed, the tax payers picked up the tab, from the Savings & Loan crisis to the credit crunch bailouts.

For them, government, properly controlled, is a candy store. Well established industries, from oil/gas to massive corn farming, still get heavy support--allowing people like Dubya, incidentally, to make millions even though all his businesses tanked (his brothers profited from the S&L bailout). Their "big government" rhetoric is reserved for regulation--they're not advocating returning any of the billions they're making from it, not the least of which comes from military operations.

This is why Clinton (who, other than health care, was really a rather conservative Democrat) was such a threat. He understood the economy, and when Newt rushed into town, he knew he'd need to work with him and adapted. Newt, also, despite his silly Contract with America pagent, realized he had to work with the President to get things done--and they both did, in the largest peacetime expansion in our nation's history. This, however, was reversing the gains of the conservative elite.

So they demonize government even as they use it. Find a "moral" issue, blow it out of all context, whether immigration, gay marriage, abortion, whatever, and get the voters fired up. Promise them you'll cut their taxes and usher in change (by the way--you all have been getting tax cuts since 1980 now...what have you all done with all that extra money? Just curious...).

OK, that's the past, so where do we go from here? Despite the rhetoric about Obama's administration/Congress so far, other than health care, they've continued Bush's conservative approach, protecting large financial institutions and trying to buy their way out of recession (Bush had already used up lowering interest rates in two previous recessions) and promote liquidity. Whether this was a good idea (a lot of economists say it should have gone much farther), and whether it worked (most economists say it at least helped), doesn't really matter in terms of the nation's direction, as that was/is a short term situation. Jobs will come back as inventories continue to fall and confidence/knowledge about where we are and what's coming (including adjusting to health care changes) settles down (probably starting after August--orders for durable goods and production goods are already up). So while no one likes how much we're spending, this is a blip, correctly handled or not.

This is the problem with the Teas, and why I consider their approach naive--just replace everybody, preferably with new, uncompromising conservatives, a recipe for gridlock, lax regulation, and handing the candy store keys back to the conservative elite. After all, economic woes keep people from worrying too much about keeping a closer eye on what else is happening. It also makes a labor force relatively grateful for that thankless, low paying job, as better than nothing. It's a prosperous middle class, more than anything, that keeps a close eye on misdeeds. As long as cash can still be rechanneled from taxpayers to the ruling class at the top, all is well as far they are concerned.

This is also why conservative leaders consider liberals such an obstacle--they promote individual rights, and this threatens their power structure. Consider this list of liberal achievements generated in another thread:

quote:

Yeah, I weep when I think of all those good things liberals destroyed: segregation, old-age poverty, child labor, sweatshops, malnutrition in schools...monopolies, unaffordable education through high school, extreme poverty, work place discrimination in hiring...dumping toxic waste into rivers, logging off old-growth forests, damming wild rivers, lead in gasoline, cars without seatbelts, lead paint in baby cribs....

Every one of those was opposed by the conservative structure as too costly, and you can see why--it takes money away and forces social accountability. Remember before all this, the 1890s and the early 20th century, with completely free markets--incredible monopolies, including intertwined trusts, no workplace safety at all (one in three workers died on the job), workers locked inside factories, children chained to their looms, factory workers earning 25% of what it cost to support a family--this is the conservative ideal. "Compassionate" conservatism is accepting that society has advanced, and conserving the consolidation of the wealth, power, and institutions of the ruling elite from there, while promoting its global interests at the cost of the citizenry's lives and tax dollars.

So yes, trickle-down economic policy works--for the powerful wealthy elite, and at the cost of American taxpayers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Should have just nationalised those failing banks

Yeah, there's a way to guarantee success. What could go wrong?

As opposed to the remarkable success we've observed from the strategic genius of writing unconditional blank cheques with neither oversight nor influence on the use of the funds so conveyed, I see your point.

Meanwhile here in the United Socialist Kingdom Of England, Scotland and N Ireland we own the banks we bailed out as taxpayers and shall, inshallah, recover our donations and more when their recovery to full health, already underway, is fully achieved. Being socialists and all, we also get to oversee what they get up to to this end and exercise influence as shareholders should it be required.

Yep, we definitely have it all wrong.

E