- This topic has 121 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by JanS.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 25, 2015 at 2:31 pm #829611
JoBParticipantCaptain Dave..
in the shifting sand of winnowing stats to make your point you are indeed an expert:(
Jan pointed out that social security (the program) is solvent.. you countered with some individuals won’t pay as much into the system as they get out.
nice jedi distraction but not to the point:(
and heads up.. that “free market” you fantasize about has depressed wages for some for most of their working lives obscenely elevating them for others… greatly influencing how much any individual can pay into social security.
even then, the current minimum benefit is NOT enough to live on.. even if you live very frugally.
reframing feeding and housing the elderly as “the forced redistribution of wealth” totally ignores the fact that the forced redistribution of wealth occurred long before their retirement…
and retired people on minimum social security were not the recipients of that generosity.
reframing the conversation doesn’t really change the outcome… it just creates a smokescreen for the truth.
December 25, 2015 at 2:31 pm #829612
JoBParticipantCaptain Dave..
in the shifting sand of winnowing stats to make your point you are indeed an expert:(
Jan pointed out that social security (the program) is solvent.. you countered with some individuals won’t pay as much into the system as they get out.
nice jedi distraction but not to the point:(
and heads up.. that “free market” you fantasize about has depressed wages for some for most of their working lives obscenely elevating them for others… greatly influencing how much any individual can pay into social security.
even then, the current minimum benefit is NOT enough to live on.. even if you live very frugally.
reframing feeding and housing the elderly as “the forced redistribution of wealth” totally ignores the fact that the forced redistribution of wealth occurred long before their retirement…
and retired people on minimum social security were not the recipients of that generosity.
reframing the conversation doesn’t really change the outcome… it just creates a smokescreen for the truth.
December 25, 2015 at 2:35 pm #829613
JoBParticipantCaptain Dave
btw.. not to rain on your parade or anything but the major roadblocks to getting and maintaing a job are lack of stable housing of any kind, lack of adequate nutrition, lack of medical care and actual job opportunities.
You in effect demand that poor people somehow find and hold down a job without resource to adequate sleep, sanitation, food, transportation, medical care or opportunities.
you want them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps blindfolded with their hands tied behind them.
somehow.. i don’t think they are the ones in need of a reality check.
December 25, 2015 at 8:09 pm #829618
dobroParticipant“Dobro: “You won’t be getting any of that from Ted Cruz. ” Why? Because you say so? Actual track record seems to tell a different story unless you get all your news from MSNBC and Politico.”
Well, first of all I don’t watch MSNBC and don’t read Politico. My recollection of Cruz’ track record has more to do with his efforts to shut down gov’t, repeal the ACA, reverse same sex marriage, etc. details of which are available at many news outlets. So, true, my interpretation of his track record isn’t based on his brief time at the FTC as explained in your article from right-wing news outlet PJ Media.
“Since1890 free markets don’t always end up in monopolies–because of antitrust.”
In other words, because of gov’t regulation. Which means its not a free market, its a govt regulated market. Kind of like I said earlier. Glad you agree.
“Maintaining a free market (in modern terminology) requires regulation to promote fair competition. Fair competition keeps wages high and prices low.”
In other words, maintaining a free market requires having a not-free market. Promoting fair competition means having a gov’t regulated market. Why not just admit that the term “free market” is baloney, leave behind the loaded terms and discuss reality? Reality being the fact that capital markets must be regulated, and what we’re talking about is how to do that properly so that it works for all of us, not just the wealthy few.
“Socialism is about the forced redistribution of wealth.”
I’ll take a page from your book- Why? Because you say so? Socialism is about creating and maintaining systems that work for the common good and are funded and used by all people. There are plenty of examples of this working out well in the Western world (think fire dept., roads, police, etc) so I’ll leave you to your Google if you want specifics.
“Since LBJ, the US has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on the “War Against Poverty”. Five decades later, the result is more poor people in America than ever before.”
I’m sure you know that a lot of other things have happened since LBJ, like offshoring of our manufacturing base, wages not nearly keeping up with profits and productivity, slashing of the social safety net, wealth capture by the .01 per cent with no “trickle down” effect, and much more, that have a lot to do with the state of poverty in this country. And all of that going on while we still maintain our status as the richest country in the history of mankind. It’s disgraceful, really, and not in the way you’re describing.
“Poor people need to be given the chance to lift themselves out of poverty by having the incentive to learn and innovate so they can build careers or start businesses.”
The idea that poor people have no “incentive” to get out of poverty is paternalistic, disrespectful, and, frankly… well, I’ll just go back to Why? Because you say so?
December 26, 2015 at 7:16 am #829619
JanSParticipantand…to add to what JoB said…the population , since LBJ, has grown immensely…more people, more “poor”,more low income people…more everything.
December 26, 2015 at 8:27 pm #829623
JTBParticipantDemocratic capitalism in the OECD countries attained its highest stage of economic growth and standard of living in the (exceptional) three decades following WWII. Redistributive policies, what Capt. Dave might wrongly call socialism, were essential to maintaining relative equality as wage share followed increases in productivity. That began to change in the 1970’s as economic productivity started to decline. Wages have largely stagnated since then.
It’s also worth noting the popular participation in electoral processes and labor organizations also began to decline in the late 70’s and onward. Government commitment to full employment and social welfare programs decreased steadily. But government debt increased dramatically under Reagan due to tax cuts and military spending. Clinton oversaw a radical decrease in welfare spending which, in combination with the GHW Bush tax increases and the peace dividend, briefly erased the public debt until GW Bush restored it through massive tax cuts and military spending.
With the crisis of capitalism during the Great Recession, the massive private debt was assumed by governments as the debtor of last resort, debt consolidation, in order to avert a complete collapse of the financial system and to provide some stimulus in hopes of restarting economic growth which had bottomed out.
Another way of looking at this might be to point out that in the four decades since 1975, low economic growth under capitalism has persisted to the point that national governments have assumed private debt, leaving the global financial market free to continue creating synthetic money for the benefit of the organizations and elite who benefit from those manipulations which can seriously be considered as little more than a series of economic bubbles.
This confused, uniformed talk about welfare programs, public debt, and a magical “free markets” is illustrative of why it was possible for conditions to arrive at this state in the first place
a populace completely unprepared to deal with the problem. That said, one of the most difficult challenges historically is maintaining the level of popular engagement necessary to protect the interests of ordinary citizens. I think the Cold War set up conditions that weakened popular democracy and favored control of the elite. Regardless of the cause, participatory democracy has declined throughout the OECD nations, not simply in the USA, and enabled the rise of a political class that is beholden to technocrats and plutocrats for their existence.I think people feel a lot of this intuitively and that makes them vulnerable to the likes of Cruz and Trump who exploit the anxieties and play to fear and anger rather than offering realistic, even difficult solutions to our systemic problems. Of course, that’s because they don’t have an honest notion for dealing with any of it because they are both cynical demagogues. We are at the sad state where for a disturbingly great portion of the population, politics is all about style and posturing, bluster and pretense.
December 26, 2015 at 8:37 pm #829626
dobroParticipantI think this has a lot to do with all of our financial problems.
December 26, 2015 at 9:07 pm #829628
metrognomeParticipantJTB – thanks for an understandable summary. I tend to look at anthropological issues that have affected our society over a similar time frame. Our current crop of ‘leaders’ was born or raised primarily after WWII. There were huge changes that resulted from the Great Depression being followed by WWII which was followed by the consumer boom of the fifties — cars, houses, washing machines, credit cards, the interstate freeway system, the GI Bill, the shift of the population from rural areas to big cities, from the Deep South to the (now) Rust Belt, the resulting fragmentation of nuclear families, the growth of national (and international) chains like Coke and McD’s.
The impact of television as a subliminal teaching medium in the home over hundreds of hours, as well as the explosive growth of Hollywood movies, is often given short shrift regarding the impact those frequently repeated messages had on impressionable minds. Remember, conservatives controlled most movie and TV studios in those days; husband and wife slept in separate beds, ethnic minorities were usually servants, ‘problems’ were solved in a half hour and everybody smiled and their clothes were clean and their tummies were full.
This modern ‘god helps those who help themselves’ concept is a popular adaptation of those shows, particularly the westerns — a worthwhile (i.e. godly) man pulls himself up by his bootstraps by himself with help from no one, using his gun freely whenever he is done wrong (never mind the free land for homesteaders and railroads, mineral rights, etc.)
Western movies (and war movies, gangster movies, etc.) also spouted oft-repeated canards about women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities that form the basis for much of today’s conservative thinking.
Our modern-day epidemic of gun violence, and the bs used to justify it, can also be traced back in part to the violent shows my generation was immersed in starting from a very young age (not to mention the tie-ins like Roy Rogers’ toy six-guns.) I read that the Rifleman, who preferred non-violence, killed 120 bad guys during the 158 episodes in the show’s 5-year run. His Winchester was basically a semi-automatic weapon.
Not surprisingly, these concepts can often be traced back to the ‘smite thine enemy’ Old Testament while the ‘love thy neighbors as thyself’ New Testament is frequently ignored … unless the womenfolk have a bake sale for the poor widow and her kids, as she will be shunned for being husbandless, no matter the reason.
The problem is that the current group of boot-strappers who promote that ideology rarely did it alone;
– Donald J. Trump got a million more from his dad (who inherited from his dad) to start than I got from mine, millions more in the estate;
– Clint Didier, the Tea Party rancher from eastern WA who keeps running for office, gets the usual government subsidies;
– corporate farming agribusinesses rake in billions in grants and tax breaks;
– vulture capitalists like Mittens Romney take advantage of tax breaks for the wealthy and shelter their money off-shore instead of paying their fair share.
– the war profiteers with their no-bid contracts worth billions.
– the oil companies whose profit is already in the billions but who somehow deserve more tax breaks …
and on it goes. Of course, you will never hear a conservative refer to these as ‘entitlements.’
When an extremely small percentage of Americans hold an enormous, gigantahugic, massive amount of the personal wealth in this country while paying a pittance in wages and often no benefits, and serious efforts are underway across the country in red states to reduce access to health care and voting, something is seriously wrong. I think our Founding Parents would be stunned at how their words have been twisted. I also think if their Jesus exists, the moneychangers in the temple are due for a purge.
Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz, the son of an émigré from a Communist country, was born in Canada; he is a U.S. citizen only because his mother was a U.S. citizen, something provided for in our founding documents. He attends rallies sponsored by a ‘pastor’ who loudly and publicly advocates for the execution of homosexuals. Rafael has yet to repudiate those comments.
[end soapbox]
December 26, 2015 at 9:51 pm #829629
JTBParticipantMet., you speak to a number of themes I’ve been interested in beyond the straightforward political issues
mythos on one hand and the power of media on the other, although the two are connected as the latter expresses the former.I’ve been interested in how a number of Clint Eastwood’s movies deconstruct American myths about the gun in the hands of a righteous man as a solution to in justice and violence by his careful expose of the dehumanizing, destructive effects of that course (see Unforgiven and American Sniper). Yet the myth persists and is played upon by the NRA to help sell guns to the frightened folks who are certain that hoards from the inner cities will one day invade the burbs when resources become scarce. good man with a gun. Sure. And the myth is recycled in updated forms endlessly in the media.
But the larger issue is that we are certainly living in the age of The Spectacle in which mass communications dominate individual consciousness to the point that people self identify by the entertainment they consume. It has all become so integrated that politics, entertainment, journalism, and money are united seamlessly. The White House Correspondents’ Dinner perfectly expresses this as the corporations who own the networks and the Hollywood and sports celebrities arrange for a night with the politicians who provide fuel for the ongoing news as entertainment. Perfect. And is it at all surprising that individuals are left to sort through that mess to extract any real understanding of what is going on? Are they expected to? Would it be a problem if they did?
December 26, 2015 at 11:22 pm #829630
dobroParticipant“The White House Correspondents’ Dinner perfectly expresses this as the corporations who own the networks and the Hollywood and sports celebrities arrange for a night with the politicians who provide fuel for the ongoing news as entertainment.”
You are exactly right and that’s why I’ll never forget the brief 24 minute crack in the matrix provided by Stephen Colbert in 2006. Enjoy…
December 27, 2015 at 12:31 am #829631
JoBParticipantwell played.. and well thought out comments
it’s a pleasure to realize that as i drift in and out of post surgical awareness that the conversation not only goes on..
it is enlarged:)
metrognome waxing philosophical is a Christmas present i didn’t expect ;-)
thanks guys
January 1, 2016 at 12:39 am #829687
dobroParticipantlooks like Dr Carson’s circling the drain. Well, he’s made a name for himself and I’m sure we’ll see him commenting on Fox and coming out with more books (since he went on a book tour and made paid speeches while “campaigning”). Apparently, just another hustler. Who could have predicted?
January 1, 2016 at 12:41 am #829688
JanSParticipantoh, Ben Carson…next in line to abdicate…pretty soon there will only be 3 or 4 in the front of the bus, and more separated, riding in the back…
January 1, 2016 at 1:06 am #829689
metrognomeParticipantI think ultimately, it’s going to be a three-way at the convention ‘tween Trump, Rubio and Cruz and maybe a white horse wild card like Mittens. I think Bush00 is too far gone to be resuscitated; he is blaming Obama’s ‘divisiveness’ for the rise of Trump.
As far as weaknesses, Trump’s are obvious because they are also viewed as his strengths by his supporters. Rubio has missed too many votes in the Senate but I think he’s angling for C-in-C job via the VP slot anyway. Cruz is hated by too many R’s for his Senate antics, has sponsored too little legislation and is too easily caricatured as a religious zealot, which he is (he recently told his volunteers to ‘strap on the full armor of god’ in a teleconference.)
Once the candidate and running mate are chosen, the Dems, who have pretty much been sitting on the sidelines watching the R’s destroy themselves, will release the full might of their ad campaign. I think they have as many billionaires now as the R’s, so record amounts of cash will be wasted, I mean, spent.
and, JoB, as I am an atheist, it was Saturnalia musing whilst in full regalia. And, I’m glad you found it amusing, altho I think the pain meds may have had more to do with it…
January 1, 2016 at 2:17 am #829692
JKBParticipantRubio disqualified himself today by calling for a constitutional convention upon his election.
January 1, 2016 at 2:17 am #829693
JKBParticipantIt’s “protect and defend”, not “rewrite to suit oneself”. At the risk of digressing, Cf. Obama pursuing his pet gun control measures by executive order.
January 1, 2016 at 3:10 am #829694
metrognomeParticipantyou may want to wait until the EO is actually issued so you know what it really says …
EO’s are legal under the founding articles unless and until a court decides otherwise. They have been used quite extensively by Republican presidents; Ronnie and Dubyah issued 672 between them; Ike another 484. As of Sept 2014 when the article below was written, Pres. Obama had issued 182. You can check federal archives such as the Federal Register for the details.
btw, can you say. ‘Illegal arms sales to Iran authorized by EO issued by Reagan.’
‘With 17 months of his presidency remaining, Ronald Reagan will bank on executive orders and judicial action to implement social policies that he cannot persuade Congress to enact, Gary L. Bauer, the President’s chief domestic policy adviser, declared Thursday.’
LA Times, 1987, link to article included in HuffPo article below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/ronald-reagan-and-george_b_5550444.html
oh, what the heck …
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush-subjects.html
January 1, 2016 at 2:53 pm #829697
JoBParticipantmetrognome.. i have been on bigger pain meds than usual myself lately. My bestie says it makes my conversations too esoteric for her ;-)
January 1, 2016 at 10:31 pm #829704
redblackParticipantJKB: obama’s detractors have been sounding the claxon about liberal authoritarianism since day one of his presidency. yeah, sorry the brown shirts took your guns away. sorry that we democratic sheep ushered in the death knell for the bill of rights.
oh, wait. gun sales are still soaring, you say? arms manufacturers are still raking in mountains of dollars based on paranoia? money that they will turn around and spend to supports politicians and judges who will perpetuate that fear and xenophobia?
huh. my bad.
seems to me that obama’s executive order might be a dose of sanity in a nation that is seriously lacking law enforcement and civility right about now.
how many more lives will this american anarchy claim before we demand sensible gun control?
January 2, 2016 at 12:25 am #829707
JKBParticipantI wonder about things.
I wonder why online forums bring out the worst in people.
I wonder why people seize on tiny (sometimes imaginary) bits and argue them vehemently, ignoring the actual main point.
My friend Mr. Godwin wonders where the Brownshirt remark came from, as it’s more of a non sequitur than the typical waynster post.
I wonder why people with a cause think it’s right to trample our system of laws and civil guarantees, so long as their cause is served. I especially wonder when it’s an aspirant or incumbent of high office doing it.
Perhaps redblack wrote all that as a troll or goad to argument. Sometimes people do. Yeah, I wonder about people.
January 2, 2016 at 1:03 am #829708
JKBParticipantMetrognome, where are these founding documents of which you speak?
Several posts ago you said they guarantee Ted Cruz citizenship despite his birth in Canada. And lately that executive orders are legal under the founding documents. Show me?
I believe you’ll find the Constitution is silent on both matters.
Cruz is settled by the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants citizenship by (fairly recent) statute. And even the 14th Amendment is a Reconstruction-era thing, hardly ‘founding’.
Executive orders are less clear to me. Seems reasonable that the Chief Executive uses them for….well, what exactly? Somewhere there must be relevant law defining what can or cannot be in them, but I don’t know where to look.
January 2, 2016 at 4:21 am #829711
dobroParticipantHere’s an article explaining executive orders and their history…
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/executive-orders-what-they-are-and-how-they-work.html
In a nutshell, they’ve been used by every President since G Washington, over 13,000 times. Two in recent times have been overturned by the Supreme Court, one by H Truman and one by B Clinton. There is no definition of what can or cannot be in them, but they apparently can be overturned if challenged correctly.
I don’t see any of Obama’s EOs being overturned. Repubs will just use them to drum up fear and fundraise and gun dealers will watch their bank accounts grow. As it ever was.
January 2, 2016 at 3:33 pm #829714
redblackParticipantJKB: you can address me directly. there’s no need to be passive aggressive, especially in an online forum.
i employed what is known as sarcasm (and smart-assery) in my post. let me know if you need any of my points explained, because i think they were salient.
i’ll try again, in a drier tone.
conservatives have been accusing obama, who is a constitutional law expert, of shredding the bill of rights – and especially the second amendment – through executive order. in fact, gun sales are soaring.
gun massacres have been occurring with increasing frequency, and they seem to be becoming commonplace.
at what point is it okay to declare a state of emergency and demand that something be done? i believe that most reasonable people are there already.
January 2, 2016 at 3:35 pm #829715
redblackParticipantand if i may, i have a follow-up question:
what is the conservative/libertarian position on rising gun violence? because it seems to be to do absolutely nothing, unless it’s to buy more guns and shoot back at domestic terrorists.
do you have any thoughts on the topic – other than my posting style?
January 2, 2016 at 4:05 pm #829716
JoBParticipantJKB… Redblack makes valid points.
at what point does the right of a citizen to walk down the street without the fear of being gunned down in public for being in the wrong place at the wrong time supercede a recent interpretation of the second amendment that makes it virtually impossible for us to secure the safety of our populace?
if good guys with guns were the answer kids wouldn’t be at risk of death from gun “accidents” and women wouldn’t be at risk from their significant others and you could go to the local cinema without wondering if some nut with an automatic weapon just drew a bead on your back.
unfortunately, the reality is that the “freedoms” “good guys with guns” demand only increases the risk of death for the rest of us.
I am thinking i am not too eager to pay the ultimate price for your “freedoms”.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.