Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen,
Good article, very timely. I’ve been musing over the latest Republican legislative blunder. It’s so aggressively stupid, it takes one’s breath away; cutting programs for the poor, while simultaneously cutting taxes for the rich.

Let them. Let the Republicans put Alito on the Supreme Court. Let them enact yet another act of gross fiscal irresponsibility.

Why? The Democrats will need to propose some very hard measure to cure this situation. People will need to be completely & utterly disgusted with the Republicans before they’re willing to see the wisdom of prudent measures.

From the Eisenhower years through 1964, the top income tax bracket was 91%, and corporations paid over 20% of federal tax collections. Today, the top bracket is dropping to 35%, and corporations pay less than 7& of collections.

The Democrats will need to provide their version of a ‘Contract for America,’ and it must include some politically difficult recommendatioins. The top tax bracket should be moved back to 50%. Corporate tax collections should be increased dramatically.

On the spending side of the equation, national health along the lines of the Canadian solution needs to be implemented.

The obvious wisdom of such moves needs to be seen by the citizenry. This country has become a plutocracy, and changing that will be difficult. But the time is approaching, perhaps next summer. Until then, let the conservative Republicans discredit themselves completely and utterly. They’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie, without Democratic help.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2005 02:33 AM

I agree with almost everything that phx8 said with the exception of the health care. In Canada the health care system is poor and the wealthy still get the best health care, by going out of the country. The elederly still eat cat food in Canada(I have a friend from there). So having that kind of system would not work unless you want under par type of doctors working on your kids, parents, and yourself.

Posted by: michele at November 5, 2005 08:38 AM

Government is not always the solution and more of it is not always better.

Some of the examples you give actually show this. The Katrina debacle, for example, was a failure of government on all levels and as the investigation of the levees is showing, it was a failure over a very long time. But maybe it was just a bad problem because of particular circumstances. If you look at the results of one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, you see that almost all the screw up occurred in one place - New Orleans. If the place had been properly evacuated, this storm would have been remarkable only in its natural fury. How would more money or bigger government have helped with this? All the necessary buses and conveyances were available to the local authorities. They just weren’t used. Once this mistake was made, the die was cast.

As for the other parts of the post, deficits are a problem, BUT the economy is doing fine. Unemployment is 5% (lower than most times in any of our lifetimes), economic grow have been above 3% every since the 2003 round of tax cuts. In the real world, this is about as good as it gets.

Compare real to real. Read about what is going on in France, which has the kind of big government you advocate. Unemployment is about double ours. In fact, French unemployment has been above our worst ever any of our lifetimes for more than a decade. If that is what you want …

Back to America, can we do better than we are now? Frankly, I am not sure we can. There will be ups and downs, but we are doing very well. We can’t do better if we are talking about perceptions. New technologies have made our lives (and even those of the poor) much better than anyone would have thought possible a couple generations ago. But it is the nature of people to not be satisfied and to see their problems as the greatest in history. And the glass will always be half full as long as the glass keeps on getting bigger.

BTW - most democrats also voted for the war. And when they saw the same intelligence they believed that Saddam was dangerous. It is just that they have poor memories.

Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2005 09:40 AM

Jack,
Lemme ask you a question. If hurricane preparedness and response wasn’t a federal responsibility for the gulf coast in 2005, why did the federal government do such a bang-up job of it in Florida in 2004?

Imagine if, in advance of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of trucks had been waiting with water and ice and medicine and other supplies. Imagine if 4,000 National Guardsmen and an equal number of emergency aid workers from around the country had been moved into place, and five million meals had been ready to serve. Imagine if scores of mobile satellite-communications stations had been prepared to move in instantly, ensuring that rescuers could talk to one another. Imagine if all this had been managed by a federal-and-state task force that not only directed the government response but also helped coordinate the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other outside groups.

Actually, this requires no imagination: it is exactly what the Bush administration did a year ago when Florida braced for Hurricane Frances. Of course the circumstances then were very special: it was two months before the presidential election, and Florida’s twenty-seven electoral votes were hanging in the balance. It is hardly surprising that Washington ensured the success of “the largest response to a natural disaster we’ve ever had in this country.” The president himself passed out water bottles to Floridians driven from their homes.

(here’s the source)

If it wasn’t a federal responsibility in 2005, then why WAS it a federal responsibility in 2004? Which year did they get it wrong, Jack?

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 5, 2005 11:12 AM

Stephen,

I accidentally edited out the first paragraph of my post, so here it is:

Stephen,
Excellent post. Thoughtful and well written as always. By the way, I found an interesting article discussing why people are conservative. You might find it interesting. Here’s the link.

Posted by: ElliottBay at November 5, 2005 11:20 AM

Jack-

Government is not always the solution and more of it is not always better.

Your depth perception on my views is pretty poor. France is way beyond the limits of what I would consider appropriate government. I have no love for socialism, no love for secularity with a phobia for religion. I certainly don’t like the way they approach their Arab immigrants and citizenship.

I really doubt that things are as they could be right now. We could not be in a headache of a war, we could have a budget that’s being paid for in the most part by revenues, not debt financing, we could have storefronts full rather than empty, inflation down, and interest rates much lower. Most of all we could have a country being lead by people who are not under the lingering shadow of possible indictments. It’s a failure of imagination to believe things couldn’t be better.

As for voting for the war, we remember much more than the GOP does. We remember the drumbeat of Saddam Hussein giving the worst weapons to the worst terrorists. We remember our president talking about the next smoking gun being a mushroom cloud over one of our cities.

As for the information? Because of security restrictions put in place, most legislators never saw full reports. Because of the removal of qualifications and notes about controversies surrounding the intelligence, even those given full reports were not given the full truth as many administration members knew it. Americans themselves were told based on forged documents that the President had been warned by the CIA was highly questionable, and which that agency had removed prior to his staff putting it back in. How is it that Americans had even the remotest chance of seeing the same intelligence as the Bush administration? Your notion that they did is a pleasing fiction to your side, but it is, without a doubt, only a fiction.

My problem is not a poor memory, but an excellent one, which does not let me forget all the half-truths and outright lies that got us into this situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2005 11:56 AM

Stephen

Sorry if I missed your views. Of course, we both of us write, the post is not only between us, but for others.

As for the world being okay, I recognize ups and downs. Overall life is good in these United States

Interest rates are low and many people are locked into 4% mortgages. It gets better, but not much

Unemployment is 5%. Very low by historical standards. It is about as low as you will see it go outside of brief periods of a bubble economy.

Inflation is clearly manageable. It has been lower (not long ago) but it doesn’t get much better.

In fact, the last three years have been wonderful economically. If we could keep this up, I would be content.

Re the world getting better, it has been getting better all the time. But as it improves, our expectations rise. It will never end. It is human nature problem. I was just out running in this nearly perfect fall weather. The houses I passed were well kept up. Nice cars are parked nearby. The problems were too much of this sort of thing. All those clowns with their leave blowers making notice. Too many cars driving by etc. Anybody who buys a leaf blower has too much money.

Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2005 12:43 PM

michele wrote:

In Canada the health care system is poor …. The elderly still eat cat food in Canada …

The above statement is equally true for some Americans. Can you back this up with some facts and hard data?

Posted by: Steve K at November 5, 2005 12:52 PM

Stephen, I couldn’t agree with you more.
You wrote:
“What about a strong dollar, and good employment?”

Yes, and job creation was down in Sept. and Oct., energy prices are going through the roof, and the threat of inflation is looming pretty high:
Not just Katrina: Job weakness spreading
Funny thing about that article though, they claim that wages have been rising, yet almost everyone I know has been either been getting wage cuts (both voluntarily and not), or not receiving their yearly raises on schedule.

phx8:
“Let them. Let the Republicans put Alito on the Supreme Court.”

I think only a man could say something like this. Losing autonomy over our bodies simply to gain political advantage really doesn’t appeal to a great many women.

“Let them enact yet another act of gross fiscal irresponsibility.”

It’s amazing to me that the country still hasn’t woken up to the cold, hard fact that “trickle down” is a giant crock!

“Why? The Democrats will need to propose some very hard measure to cure this situation. People will need to be completely & utterly disgusted with the Republicans before they’re willing to see the wisdom of prudent measures.”

The question that baffles me is, why haven’t they already reached this state? And why do things always have to get so bad before the worm turns?

Jack:
“Unemployment is 5%. Very low by historical standards.”

This number has dropped due to Katrina.

“In fact, the last three years have been wonderful economically. If we could keep this up, I would be content.”

Ah, spoken like a man for who things have been going well for a very long time. Case in point:

“Re the world getting better, it has been getting better all the time. But as it improves, our expectations rise. It will never end. It is human nature problem. I was just out running in this nearly perfect fall weather. The houses I passed were well kept up. Nice cars are parked nearby. The problems were too much of this sort of thing. All those clowns with their leave blowers making notice. Too many cars driving by etc. Anybody who buys a leaf blower has too much money.”

You should try jogging through a less well-off neighborhood sometime. There is always the possibility your perspective might change. A huge number of American’s happen to be really struggling at the moment.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 02:01 PM

michele:
“I agree with almost everything that phx8 said with the exception of the health care. In Canada the health care system is poor and the wealthy still get the best health care, by going out of the country.”

Michele, it may appear that way, but I think maybe you might want to read this article:
For Americans, Getting Sick Has Its Price
Survey Says U.S. Patients Pay More, Get Less Than Those in Other Western Nations

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 02:07 PM

Adrienne

There will be poor always. The standard rises with rising prosperity.

I am doing well now, but life is dynamic. About ten years ago I started to make more than the median American income. Before that I was making less, sometimes much less. I expect to work about fifteen more years and I project that when I am all done I will have made almost exactly the median American income over my lifetime. I will not apologize for being better off than average. I didn’t complain when I was less so. I also didn’t buy things I couldn’t afford.

You are right that when I run near home, I tend to go through the affluent areas. But when I run near work, I sometimes run through a Washington Ghetto. It is not that bad. What concerns me there is not the houses; it is the people. As long as people behave themselves, we don’t have any trouble. What I do notice is a lot of young people doing not much of anything. I also notice that they are wearing expensive running shoes (better than mine) and talking on cel phones (which I don’t own). When I was poor, I had better priorities. That is why I am not poor anymore.

BTW - even in the ghetto, they still used those G Damn leaf blowers. If I were king, the first thing I would do is ban them. That is a place I support government regulation.

Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2005 02:36 PM

Jack,
What you’re describing is an odd cultural aspect of living in the ghetto. I understand this because I’ve lived in a few in the past (in order to save money). I view it as an issue (a very distorted one) of pride.
Basically, because they’ve been raised not to look toward the future (unlike you and I, who have obviously been raised by the kind of people who emphasized the importance of weighing true priorities), being able to own the latest in clothes, cars, and gadgets takes on this terrifically huge importance.
And I consider it tragic. Because these people, while often living in total squalor, run up an ENORMOUS amount of credit card debt that too often becomes impossible to dig themselves out of.
It didn’t used to be like this. People used to have to prove they had the means to run up a bit of debt. But not anymore. Now, thanks to the credit card companies, paired with the relentless force-feeding of slick advertising to a increasingly rabid consumerist culture, it’s what everybody does (rich, middle class AND poor). Indeed, when it comes to the poor, I have come to the conclusion that this entire situation has been cynically engineered by the credit card companies. They utterly enslave these people indefinitely, using the only sense of pride they seem to have against them. It’s a truly evil thing, IMO.

But getting back to the topic here, the vast majority of the working class has been REALLY struggling. And I know I’m certainly starting to lose quite a bit of profit, because my suppliers shipping costs have gone way, way up, though the majority of my customers don’t want to pay more. Everyone has been tightening their belts — for quite some time now.

PS. I absolutely loathe leaf blowers too. But even worse in my opinion, is when people pile up leaves in giant plastic bags and put them down at the curb like they’re garbage. Who taught them such nonsense? Why don’t they understand that composting those leaves will give them the best gardens and the healthiest trees they’ve ever had?

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 03:57 PM

Adrienne,
“Only a man…” What would you do about Alito? Best case- a filibuster succeeds and his nomination is thwarted. What then? Bush will nominate another candidate using the same litmus test. Impeach Bush? I’m for it. But that’s difficult without control of Congress, and taking it over in the 2006 midterms will be difficult, given the weighty advantage that comes with incumbency. After Bush, Cheney would assume the presidency. He’s a lying sack of shit, and with any luck at all he’ll resign by 2008, but the situation remains the same even after the corrupt Cheney resigns. Another Republican will nominate another SCOTUS candidate using the same litmus test.

The best option is to make it abundantly clear that Democrats oppose Alito and support the right to choose. Polls show a strong majority support the right to choose. Even if, worse case, RvW is overturned, it would only be a matter of time before it’s re-instated. Don’t worry, Adrienne. We’re right, events have proven us right again and again, and though it may take time, we will unquestionably prevail.

By the way, turns out despite warnings from the intelligence community, the Bush administration used false information to suggest Iraq was training Al Qaida terrorists. Thread by thread, the tapestry of lies surrounding the Invasion of Iraq are coming unwoven.

“The question that baffles me is, why haven’t they already reached this state? And why do things always have to get so bad before the worm turns?”

We’re getting there. Approval rating for Bush are in the high 30’s, lower than any other president since Nixon at this point in the term. Cheney, who is a lying sack of shit, has an approval rating of 19%. If I could draw some smell lines around his name everytime I typed it, I would. According to a poll, Bush’s support among blacks is something like 2%. Given the poll’s margin of error, it might actually be negative!

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2005 05:43 PM

The Ghetto is a limited idea of how things can go wrong. There are places that are headed in that direction because people can no longer afford to keep things decent and make ends meet.

I remember better times. Materially, I would just as soon have needs met and simply not have to worry any longer. It’s one thing to go from poor to rich, but when you’re use to things being easier, to a middle class existence being feasible… Well, that gets to you. There are plenty of people out there who would be proud to work, who want to work, but who have to sit on the wayside and deal with the consequences of an economy rapidly cannibalizing its own financial muscle. That’s why we have debt going up all over the place. Our nations is running off of its own future prosperity, and the wear is beginning to show.

Do I write of this to get everybody down? No, to make people bravely face the facts, as they should be faced. If we don’t show some courage, we’ll be digging ourselves out of a hole that could have been a brighter future. I want America strong, and I strongly doubt that the status quo will make that happen.

We need to regulate soundly and wisely, to bring people’s confidence back to the market, and prevent the kind of price gouging and malfeasance that has stripped the gears of a once unstoppable economic machine. We need to start running the economy in a more disciplined fashion, in both public and private concerns

Ultimately I only suggest raising taxes because I believe the first way to end this overspending is to make sure the American people know exactly what they’re paying for when they pay for it. Any other method allows people to get lax. If you feel the bite of overspending immediately, you may treat it as more than nuisance. If it’s always deferred, you won’t take care of it until it’s too late.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2005 06:18 PM

phx8,
You’re right. I know you’re right. But I guess I just can’t bring myself to say “Yay, another way for us to take advantage of their stupidity and short-sightedness!” when it comes to womens rights.
Also, I can’t help but think of what is undoubtedly going to happen with environmental, worker and civil rights as a result of the Supreme Court swinging so far the right — and for such a long time to come. While we all know this practically ensures a political advantage for the left, just think how the Corporations will be given carte blanche to take their own advantage.
It just sucks, and it’s going to take one hell of a lot of legislation in Congress to even attempt to thwart only some of what they’ll be doing, you know what I mean?

“Thread by thread, the tapestry of lies surrounding the Invasion of Iraq are coming unwoven.”
“We’re getting there.”

That’s the Truth! :^) And I’ll gladly give that a resounding “Yay!”

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 06:38 PM

Stephen,
Again, I totally agree.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 06:40 PM

Adrienne,
No doubt, the next year will be hard. Bush claims history will justify his actions. What a crock. Bush will be held accountable, but not the way he thinks. History will roundly damn him, up one side and down the other, for his evil obstructions of efforts to slow Global Warming.

Stephen,
No question, some unpalatable steps will have to be taken to put our economic house back in order. One of these steps will have to be rolling back taxation rates to 2000, which will be unpopular. That’s why it would be best to wait until the economic downturn occurs, probably around summer/fall 2006. Perfect time to introduce a Democrat ‘Contract for America.’

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the two fastest rising inflationary costs are housing and health care, and neither of these components are included when calculating the inflation rate.

Rising interest rates will, for better or worse, solve the housing bubble.

Addressing the health care problem will require something fairly radical. The current situation is untenable. We pay more, and receive less for our health care than any other industrialized country.

We’ll enter this next recession in desperate shape- budget deficits, trade deficits, an enormous national debt- and when the onset happens, it will happen fast. That’s not some sort of dire doomsday forecast, just an objective recognition of the speed at which stock money and, even more importantly, bond money flees a nosediving economy.

When this happens- not if, but when- the Democrats need to be prepared with a realistic agenda. I think the ‘when’ will be next summer or early fall. Until then, we must make positions known, and protest stupidity, lies, and corruption as it constantly reappears.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2005 07:01 PM

You all know that if Kerry had been elected and we had exactly the same economic figures, all you guys would be praising the robust economy. At 5%, umemployment is almost exactly what it was in 1997 (4.9), Bill Clinton’s fifth year, when people were talking about the Goldilocks economy. Productivity has been good. The economy has been growing.

We can always find places and people who are not doing as well as others, just like we can always find people and places that are doing better. The horrible news is that half of all Americans earn less than the average wage. The great news is that half of all Americans earn more than the average wage. This piece of news never changes.

Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2005 07:24 PM

Jack:
“At 5%, umemployment is almost exactly what it was in 1997”

You’re trying to compare apples and oranges here, Jack. The current unemployment rate is only reflecting the fact that they aren’t even including the number of people who are jobless, or who have had their businesses dissappear because of Katrina in that statistic. Clinton can take credit for putting us in very good economic shape in 1997 because it was due to an enormous amount of job creation and growth. But you’re attempting to give Bushco the same kind of credit for leaving out a huge number of people whose entire lives have been destroyed by a natural disaster. It makes no sense. Also, read that link I gave earlier, it is telling us that job weakness is spreading.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 08:16 PM

The stock market reacted to the good news that economic growth was very good DESPITE Katrina. The statistics would have been even better without the storm.

The economy has been doing very well since 2003. It is a fine performance.

I have no intention of trashing Clinton, who I think did a good job of economic stewardship. But consider the events. The U.S. economy started an upturn in March 1991 and was in good running condition by the time he took office. The economic downturn started in March 2000. When Bush took office it was stumbling. The first years of Clinton were among the most benign in U.S. history. The first years of Bush were among the most challenging. With all this, the Bush record is still good. That is an impressive achievment.

BTW – I don’t give presidents that much credit of blame for the economy, especially now with so much globalization. If you want to credit one man for the prosperity of both the Clinton and Bush years, your best bet is Alan Greenspan, but it is not the doing on any one person.

Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2005 08:31 PM

I watched Greenspan testifying before some committee or other in congress yesterday on Cspan. He admitted to one of the senators that while the overall economy is good and growing based on HOW THEY MEASURE, there is also a major discrepancy as to where the advantages are. The top is reaping the benefit. Their wages and compensation is going up at an unbelievable rate. The wage earning middle class has stayed flat to falling. And it gets worse the farther down you go.

He also admitted that he was against the tax cuts at this point in time.

When asked about the middle class and below he said, some people are going to be hurt very badly.

Not the exact words, but the gist of the part I was able to catch, as best I remember.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 5, 2005 08:58 PM

Jack,
I won’t repeat posts about the unemployment rate and related topics.

What makes the Bush administration and its economy different is the depressant effect of fear.

Under Reagan, we saw ‘morning in America’ and a great deal of optimism coming out of the Executive Office. Sometimes it was like having the dog Odie, from the Garfield cartoon, in charge. No matter how dim witted, there’s a lot to be said for optimism. It has a way of being self-fulfilling.

Same goes for the Clinton years. Optimism ran rampant.

Contrast that with the recent Bush years. The continuous message from the Bush administration is ‘be afraid.’ When bad news came out last week, what did Bush talk about in his speeches? Terrorism. It’s a constant refrain, a depressing drumbeat, and I believe it has an overall depressing effect on the economy. As Frank Herbert wrote in Dune, ‘Fear is the mind killer.’

The depressing effect of repeating a negative message cannot be quantitatively measured.

But it’s there.

Posted by: phx8 at November 5, 2005 09:37 PM

Jack-
First Clinton years. Hmmm. Blackhawk Down, WTC bombing, Yugoslav Civil War, Waco, Oklahoma City, Mississippi floods the worst in centuries… Not to mention the failed attempt at national healthcare and his party losing power in the legislature! That and the Whitewater investigation starting up.

Not that dull of a first term, actually.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 5, 2005 09:47 PM

Womanmarine,
What you wrote is exactly the sense I’ve been getting too. The Top is doing just fine, while Everyone below them is staggering under the weight of our Republican-style leadership (if we are going to be so kind as to call it that). And just like in an earthquake, the ones who best survive the economic shake-up that ensues, will always be those on the Top Floors. Who, with their good fortune, skew the actual statistics (which is what I alluded to earlier as both a businesswoman, and as an average-earner living in a totally working class neighborhood).

phx8: Tremendous point you’re making there. We need only look at the dignified FDR with his The New Deal, and statements like “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself”, to know that you are spot-on with your comments.
I think that psychology really does speak volumes, and unfortunately right now, we’ve got a tone-deaf, inarticulate, rather confused Clown in office. It’s such a drag, literally.

Stephen, can we finally just go ahead and say it?
Clinton is a bloody BRILLLIANT man, and a PRESIDENT FOR THE AGES. Despite his obviously over-sexed nature (what a female friend of mine calls his “rampant sexuality” :^), and the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, he really did an amazing job of guiding this nation and diplomatically representing U.S. interests to the World. And I say that as a woman who considered him not nearly liberal enough in VERY many respects.
As you may have noted (or not), I feel the same way about General Wesley Clark. He’s brilliant too (Rhodes Scholar, just like Clinton), and it’s more than obvious that he’s a mensch who has got his heart in exactly the right place. He’s also a man who truly understands warfare at a time when we’ve never needed that more.
What do you think of him? Please don’t ignore me, eh? I am expecting a direct answer, here. Because IMO, Hillary is not the Democrat to put up against a candidate like John McCain, but without a doubt, a guy with the credentials and demeanor of Wesley Clark IS.

Now I feel as though I’ve piled up on Jack — so I’ll leave him with nothing but the truth as I see it…
Such an obviously smart guy you are, Jack, but in a velveteen-rabbitt-y kind of way. Your button eyes may not always see what is right in front of them, but you’re so cute and serious when you try to defend the failures of Republican supply-side economics! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at November 5, 2005 11:50 PM

Stephen

Compared to 9/11 and the effects?

As I said, I prefer not to trash Clinton, but when you Somalia, Waco, failed healthcare, party losing power etc, those are all self inflicted. You might also add Ruby Ridge and the Elian Garcia debacles if you want to trash the poor guy.

I didn’t say he didn’t make mistakes; I said that the environment was generally benign in the first Clinton years. Some things were problems, such as the growth of Al Qaeda, but it wasn’t recognized at the time and had not yet had its final effect.

My point is that the economy is pretty good now despite the challenges.

Phx8

I agree about the negative news. Bush is guilty of some of this. But so are his opponents. Think about the economy. When you call the current unemployment, interest rates and economic growth bad news, it is an excess of pessimism.

Posted by: Jack at November 5, 2005 11:52 PM

Jack, I really hope I haven’t offended you with my offhand comment. I realize I can be a bit of a smart-ass. (It’s a hard-to-break habit for me!) While I really do find you cute, and frequently too serious in your efforts to support your party of choice, I in no way wished to imply that I find you thoroughly flop-eared when it comes to forming your opinions.
Ah hell, that doesn’t sound right either, yet it’s probably the best I can manage…

Posted by: Adrienne at November 6, 2005 01:33 AM

Jack,
“When you call the current unemployment, interest rates and economic growth bad news, it is an excess of pessimism.”

Low unemployment numbers are good news. Low interest rates are good news. Strong GDP numbers are good news. These are hallmarks of a recovery, one we’ve been in for a while, and one which should continue for a few quarters, into next summer or fall.

But as Adrienne pointed out earlier, & I’ve mentioned before in previous threads, the unemployment rate can be a deceptive number (because it doesn’t take into account job creation, or people who’ve fallen off the radar by being unemployed for more than six months). Interest rates are rising, which is not surprising. Every recovery carries within it the seeds of the next recession.

While I strongly disagree with the way they’ve been targeted, I think tax cuts during a recession are a great idea. Tax cuts act as a fiscal stimulus, just as the Federal Reserve dropping its rate acts as a monetary stimulus. Increased spending is also a fiscal stimulus, and also a good idea during a recession.

The problem is that, while the Fed has applied the brakes by raising the Federal Funds Rate during the recovery, the Bush administration & the Republican Congress continue spending money like drunken Democrats. At the same time, Bush continues to push for additional tax cuts. It’s grossly irresponsible.

A responsible fiscal move would be to raise taxes and decrease spending during the recovery, thereby reducing debts & deficits incurred to escape the recession.

A responsible economic move would be to increase taxation for the top tax bracket, discourage outsourcing of jobs, encourage domestic job creation, and address the problems with health care. A responsible economic move would be to reign in spending, starting with military expenditures.

Really, Jack, this is so obvious, I don’t even see it as being a liberal or moderate or conservative take on things. How those issues are addressed might take on an ideological cast, but that they need addressing in the first place is simple common sense.

What frustrates me to no end is that the Bush administration seems to have no ideas whatsover about how to address the economy. None. It’s appalling, it’s not just an abstract issue for me; if nothing is done to change course, my pocketbook will suffer. I’m doing fine, thank you, but the lack of job creation directly affects me. Take that situation into the next downturn, whenever it comes…

I’m in a job which is very sensitive to the economy. Cut taxes? Sounds great. But a poor economy will cost me literally tens of thousands of dollars in lost opportunities. Raise my taxes, and simultaneously provide a great economy? I’d gladly pay thousands more in taxes in exchange for tens of thousands of income.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2005 01:46 AM

Stephen,
Great post!

I hold down 3 part time jobs, with the ste wide
I do think that we need to have the White House audited. No one seems to know what the true amount of money is spent on food, employees, telephones, etc. I’ve ever serious cut part of the bigger tax cost.

The same is true of at the Pentagon. No one really knows how much money they actually use for personal items; i.e. pencils, computers, supplies. etc. Of course they do know about one major extensive, such as the toilets.

There are no “real” budgets for this two areas. I’ll bet there are more. Simply get 4 (even number) NONE -POLITICAL people to look over these budgets , and I suspect we might find a lot of unnecessary money being used.

Oh and GET us out of Iraq, that would save a bunch of money.

Posted by: Linda H. at November 6, 2005 03:13 AM

Ha Ha “Clinton a president for the ages” Selling sleepovers at the White house for political comtributions, trading missle guidance system tech to the Chinese for campaign contributions, worrying more about getting a BJ in the oval office than the threat of terrorism? Ignoring the first WTC bombing, not supporting our troops with the material they were screaming for in Somolia that led to a disaster and then an immediate pullout after the disaster? Les Aspen lost his job because of Billy boys rewfusal to support the troops he “loathed”. Hillary trying to take over a large percentage of our economy with National Health Care? Don’t show your ignorance about U.S. politics. Spot on? Please……..

The top is doing fine, but EVERYONE else is staggering under the current economy? How ignorant are you people? Look around… this is the most prosperous country in the history of the world. If you can’t make it here you can’t make it anywhere. The “POOR” in this country have two cars, air conditioning , heat, tvs ,vcrs, computers etc. Have you actually ever been to a really poor country? I have. Don’t lecture me about “the poor”

Corporations pay ZERO taxes by the way. They pass on all their liabilities to consumers. Period. If we buy their product, we are paying their taxes, just like if I perform a function or service for you, by paying me you are paying my tax burden. It does not take an economic genius to figure that one out. Glad I could educate you a little.

Anyone that wants to pay more taxes can send all of their money to the IRS. Go ahead, go to their web site. You can send in “donations” if you want. What are you waiting for? Do you want me to provide the link for you? Cutting taxes has always led to an increase in the overall money coming into the treasury. Always, everytime it has been done. I am not going to do your homework for you….look it up yourself. p.s. try the Kennedy tax cuts first. Surprised? It’s amazing what you can learn if you don’t have knee jerk responses fed to your subconscience by the mainstream (read Liberal) nedia. Good day…..

Posted by: Ace at November 6, 2005 08:05 AM

It’s not easy for everyone to live at the expense of everyone else. But, this is one of the favorite myths perpetuated by pandering, irresponsible incumbent politicians. They don’t care when it eventually creates an economic melt-down. They already got theirs. It’s the lower-to-middle-income-class that will suffer most.

The only fact continuously overlooked is that the Democrats have largely gone along with of what the Republicans have been doing. They’ve been just as bad. Hence, the fair and appropriate term, Republocrats. But, too many are too brainwashed to question their long held and deeply ingrained partisan beliefs. The proof that the brainwashing has been very effective and very difficult to overcome.
I thoroughly understand it now, because it took me 47 years to realize there’s really no difference between any of the incumbents. They are both equally irresponsible and unaccountable. And, big money keeps them in office. The cost of beating an incumbent is huge. Our voting choices are very limited, because the incumbents are funded by a few that abuse vast wealth and power, and none of them care about the future and security of the nation.

But, the real problem is incumbents (both Democrats and Republicans) are so entrenched in petty partisan warfare, raising campaign money, and beholding to big money donors and special interests, that these incumbents continuously ignore the voters and the many pressing problems facing the nation, despite the majority of voters that all agree that the many pressing problems need attention now, before it is too late.

We can foolishly continue to be seduced into participation in the petty partisan warfare, perpetuated by incumbents, that distract voters from serious issues, no-brainer, non-contentious issues, and inevitably, suffer the painful consequences of such irresponsibility, unaccountability, and fiscal and moral bankruptcy,
OR we can all take off our partisan blinders, oust the incumbents that are threatening the future and security of the nation, and insist that government address the nation’s most pressing issues now, before it is too late.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2005 09:32 AM

Adrienne

Don’t worry. Some people annoy me. You are not one of them. I can actually appreciate people making fun of me in clever ways. I do the same. I usually enjoy your comments. I don’t have any trouble with anyone who is sincere in their beliefs AND believes in free speech for the other side.

Phx8

Unemployment rates are always deceptive, but they have been gathered the same way for a long time. So when I compare today’s rates with past rates, we have a consistent if not a perfectly accurate measure. So if 4.9% was an amazingly good number (look at the comments at the time) 5% today is at least pretty good.

The first round of tax cuts was not very effective. It just gave more money to all taxpayers and provide a diffuse boost to the economy. The second round in 2003, was well targeted to stimulate investment. And it worked.

•Economic growth since the 2003 tax cut has averaged nearly 4.4 percent

•Net job creation since the 2003 tax cut has averaged more than 150,000 per month

•Tax revenues have grown by an average of more than 6 percent annually since the cut

It is a simple idea, really. If you want more of something, lower the cost. If you want to discourage something, make people pay more for it. If you lower the tax cost of investing, you get more of it. I am a small investor, whose individual behavior means little, but I think there are a lot like me. I reinvest all the capital gains and dividends my investments earn. So every dime I save in taxes goes directly into investment, where it presumably creates more jobs and allows for more taxes.

This is a good thing.

Posted by: Jack at November 6, 2005 10:36 AM

Jack-
9/11 is difficult to compare to any incident in our history. Somalia was not self-inflicted, as that operation was started under the Bush administration. Healthcare was self inflicted, but the party losing power was more the result of the last twenty years, than Clinton’s less than two in office.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were fiascos, and the government was partly at fault, but we got to get some perspective on these things. Shooting at and killing federal agents should not be lionized. Call for a respect of people’s civil rights, not the respect of these lawless fanatics. They are in large part to blame for having federal agents show up at their door.

Elian Gonzalez was a matter of international law. Sad as it was to give him back to his father, you should consider whether we’d want to set the precedent of keeping a child of a foreign citizen to ourselves if the situation is reversed, and a Cuban national takes an American child back to Cuba.

As for al-Qaeda, the Clinton administration actually sussed it out, and made taking down al-Qaeda a priority, in a day and age where most Republicans considered their terrorism a minor concern compared to rogue states and the like.

Ace-
The sleepovers are well documented, and I can’t say I approve. But go back to my last entry before this one, and you have Bush putting campaign contributors in key government jobs and advisory positions. Clinton may have done the same, but not to the extent that Bush had done.

The missile guidance technology issue is more complicated than you realize. After a missile crash, Loral, a company with a sterling reputation, provided some information to them on what might have gone wrong. Although steps had been taken to prevent sensitive technology from being transferred, it apparently was. Clinton’s waiver for this was not an isolated thing, but a regular practice started by the Bush 41 administration, which allowed commercial interests to launch satellites, so long as sensitive technology was kept secure.

Clinton did indeed grant another waiver after that, but did so with the watchdog agencies supervising every step of the way. The contractor, Loral, cooperated every step of the way. What we have here, essentially, is a story that’s more a bureaucratic snafu, rather than a presidential betrayal of national security. But hey, that doesn’t sell talk radio airwaves that well, now does it? So it’s betrayal to them.

It took nothing more than a google search to find a more accurate collection of the facts, one not tinged by the need to make Bill Clinton out to be the Antichrist.

Clinton hardly ignored the World Trade Center bombings. They uncovered the culprits, and they’re now spending their lives in jail. He made counterterrorism a cabinet-level post, rather than removing it from there like the current president did before 9/11.

As for Somalia, it was more a UN screw up than ours. The UN leader, Boutros-Boutros Ghali had loath/hate relationship with the people involved, and took several actions that inflamed the tensions. Additionally, as I told Jack, this was sort of like a Bay of Pigs situation, with President Bush’s foreign policy team having started this, and Clinton being given it. To Clinton’s credit, He stuck it out six more months in Somalia, after the Blackhawk Down incident, putting the troops in APCs rather than keeping them in the glorified jeeps we call Humvees. He had snipers posted on their quarters with shoot to kill orders, and when the time came to withdraw, he arranged an exit that left nothing to chance, and got our people out without casualties. If you want my sources on that, read Against all Enemies by Richard Clarke, and Battle Ready With Tom Clancy and Marine General Zinni.

As for Corporate taxes, corporations get all the rights and privileges of individuals, why should they not get the duties as well? Should corporations be permitted to rake in income and not have it taxed like everybody else’s? If the corporations weren’t taxed, we would be. Given that corporations make a great deal of money, it means they contribute a great deal to holding the tax burden off of us.

Cutting taxes has always led to an increase in the overall money coming into the treasury.

a) is that so? Why are we in deficit then?
b) every president who’s cut taxes has had to raise them. Reagan raised taxes three times.

You live in an economic dreamworld, Ace. It’s not a media implanted response when we’re skeptical about tax cuts increasing revenue, it’s a school related response, because we can do our arithmetic. Read The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, and you’ll find out from folks like Alan Greenspan that historically tax cuts only have a moderate effect on the economy, but that deficit spending always has a profound negative effect.

Fact of the matter is, you can’t cut taxes forever, and yet do all the things that administration you’re praising is doing. Sooner or later, you have to pay for what you’re getting. Unfortunately, you guys seem to think that the way to resolve a failure is to keep on trying and expecting the failure to turn into a success. We are hundreds of billions of dollars into the hole, and half of that is your tax cuts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2005 10:40 AM

Stephen

“We are hundreds of billions of dollars into the hole, and half of that is your tax cuts.”

And the other half? The 2003 tax cuts were very good and probably will pay for themselves. The 2001 cuts, maybe not. But if spending had remained at 1999 levels, we would have a surplus today. I am not trying to take away blame here, but we should be blaming the right action. Let’s cut spending and look at some of the tax cuts too.

Posted by: Jack at November 6, 2005 11:02 AM

Tax cuts - the same damn idiotic arguments. Yet again we’re subjected to the lies and obfuscations of the right. Tax cuts have undermined this country’s fiscal health. Tax cuts have done nothing more for our economy than mortgage our childrens’ future. If we look at our government like a household budget, then we’ve done nothing more than buy ourselves goodies on easy credit instead of saving our money and/or investing in our home. We’re made no regard for our future and, instead are digging a deeper and deeper hole.

We need to tax the hell out of the top 10%. Cries of robin hood be damned. They made their money by virtue of being in the American system and they damn well should be paying their fair share back to America. This is a message, based in truth alone, that we can sell to the American public who are watching their pensions and their social safety net disappear from underneath them. We can’t do this by letting our right wing friends have their way anymore - they’re still trying to protect off-shore tax shelters for corporations for crying out loud.

To my narrow-minded critics: this is not class warfare. Republican policies of the past five years are the class warfare and unlike the past five years, more and more of us are going to fight back.

To my fellow liberals and progressives. We must seize the leadership mantle that is being handed to us on a silver platter. Please, please please join me in ignoring the right. They’ve governed their way and blown it. We have our chance to usher in a new American New Deal based on truth and reason and honesty but we’re never going to do it if you’re going to sit back and try to play nice debating games with them. Don’t you realize that they’re scared to death of us right now? Just read their posts. We must now consider them irrelevant in moving America forward from here on in.

Posted by: roger at November 6, 2005 11:53 AM

Ace,
“The “POOR” in this country have two cars, air conditioning , heat, tvs ,vcrs, computers etc.”

Truly incredible.

Let’s move on.

Ace, it’s 2005. You present an amusing rehash of Limbaugh’s talking points from 1998. Despite it’s being 2005, you manage to write an entire post without mentioning ‘Bush.’ Allow me to respond with one deadpan word. Wow.

Oh! You forgot to mention Hillary’s murdering Vince Foster, and Clinton’s selling of cemetary plots in Arlington for his personal gain.

Since you alledge Bill Clinton to be an out and out traitor, what emotions do you experience when you see Bush, Clinton, and Bush #41 standing together? Bush #41 and Clinton have been pretty tight lately. Your conflicting emotions must be remarkable

By the way, back up your statements with links, cite sources.

Do your fellow conservatives proud, and give us liberals a detailed account of your brilliant opinions on the poor in the US. Lecture me. Please. I’m begging you. More, more!

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2005 12:20 PM

Spending cuts first !

The federal government is incredulously over-bloated !
It has grown to nightmare proporations.
Raising taxes will only make things worse.
If you want to change taxes, fix the tax system, because its complexity wastes billions, and many revenues are lost to loop holes and tax shelters.
But, increasing taxes is like giving more drugs to a drug addict. The federal government will eventually just over-dose on more money.
20% of GDP ought to be plenty. If not, it’s because there is too much spending, too much waste, too much corporate welfare, and too much entitlements. It’s an untenable situation, and revenues from increasing taxes won’t be responsibly used. All the nibbling of the edges of so many problems with the same root cause can never be resolved without first resolving that root cause. Incumbents are not concerned with the future and security of the nation.
Also, I’m amused when some people say this nation is very wealthy and doing fantastic, and painting such a rosy picture, because that ignores history, and ignores the inevitable consequences of decades of fiscal irrepsonsibility. And, it’s not just one thing. It’s not just the $8 trillion National Debt, or the GPBGC and pensions $1.6 trillion in the hole, or borrowing $1 billion per day to pay the daily interest of $1 billion per day (actually growing debt by $2 billion per day), or $6 billion per month in IRAQ, or 77 million baby boomers (approaching retirement, earning less, spending less, drawing from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plundered pensions, etc.), or the sky-rocketing cost of healthcare, or the increasingly high cost and declining quality of education, or the increasing world-wide competition and cheap-labor, or globalization, or loss of manufacturing, or continuous growth and burden of federal government growing ever bigger and bigger and corrupt, or looming short falls in Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, or an incumbent “Political Class” that cleverly manipulates voters into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action, taking sides, and being seduced into distracting and wasteful partisan warfare, or the burden of millions illegal aliens on medical, education, and law enforcement systems, or rampant corpocrisy, corporatism, stock & investor fraud, or election fraud, or government for sale, or our energy vulnerabilities, or the disappearing 40 hour work-week, or our fiscally and morally bankrupt federal government.

No, it’s not just one thing. It’s all of those serious problems that incumbents continue to ignore year after year, as they grow worse in number and severity. The incumbents even ignore the no-brainer, non-contentious, obvious problems and solutions, because incumbents are too busy with other things (raising million$ for their campaign war chests, seducing and distracting voters into participation in the partisan warfare, and loading up 10 thousand page bills with pork-barrel, graft, waste, and corruption, to grease the wheels of the corrupt machine they perverted to use and abuse the voters and trick voters into empowering them, and continuing to vote them into power.

As long as we keep our partisan blinders on, we can never see out of the box. We can never see the solution until we see how we are cleverly manipulated and controlled, and even, ironically, empower those doing it to continue to use and abuse us.

The people are truly like sheep.
Those the use and abuse voters want to divide the voters. The two main parties accomplish that, perfectly.

The best (of two solutions: the smart way and the hard way) is that a majority of voters finally remove their partisan blinders, overcome their brainwashing, and simply do the one simple thing that is really the most simple, easy, quick, safe, inexpensive, non-partisan, peaceful, easy to understand, easy to communicate and share, and most responsible action to peacefully force a balance of power (not simply shift) between government and the people. Vote out the irresponsible and unaccountable incumbents that threaten the future and security of the nation.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2005 12:25 PM

More on how to appeal to the American public and marginalize the far right:

We’re not anti-Christian or anti-religious. In fact, we want this country to act more in line with Christian principles and less in rigid dogmatism. What would Jesus do: Jesus would make sure that no child goes hungry, Jesus would support higher taxes to do so (…give to Caesar what is Caesar’s), Jesus made it clear that he thought the death penalty wrong, Jesus would turn the other cheek and reach out to those who wronged us, etc. We can assure them that we’ll protect to our deaths their rights to their religion and we will fight to our deaths to keep anyone from imposing another religion on them or they on others.

We can tell them that we don’t want any more of our young men and women dying in vain in wars that only hurt our standing abroad. We have REAL areas of danger for which we will need their sacrifices. And, when we do deploy them they can be damn sure they’re being sent with popular backing and the right equipment to do their jobs. Anyone remember that guy Osama?

We can remind the American people that we don’t want to see their families rendered bankrupt - and then not be able to get a fresh start through bankruptcy - simply because they were burdened with a gravely ill child. We can tell them why we want to reinstate their ability to sue corporations that, in some cases cause the ill health of their children through reckless dumping.

We can show them how a massive influx of money and talent into public education can restore America to the top of the math & science pile where we belong.

We can remind them that American once was a beacon of hope and democracy to the world, not the evil empire that Bush has made us seem to be. We do not need to sacrifice our national pride to get along in the world and act like leaders, not arrogant bullies.

America needs our message of hope, not our opponents’ messages of fear and hatred. We can and must relay our message proudly, point out the opposition’s empty rhetoric without fear and not back down every time a troglodyte starts playing games of obfuscation.

FYI: to those who are honest moderate, conservatives, I apologize wholeheartedly if you get caught in my too-often wide sweeping insults - they are meant to be provocative, yes, for the far right ideologues who have taken over your party and our country, not you. Do I still want to ignore some of your further right messages, yup, but I do want to draw a line.

Posted by: roger at November 6, 2005 12:33 PM

Jack, so glad I didn’t offend you.
Hey, I found this great page from the Economic Policy Institute that clearly and logically backs up what we on the left have been talking about regarding employment and falling wages.
Check it out:
An off-kilter expansion
Slack job market continues to hurt wage growth

Also, can we talk a little about what the Republican’s have been trying to do by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax? Isn’t that yet another tax cut for the wealthy, but a tax on the middle class? What else should we call it when they want to reduce or eliminate deductions on home mortgage interest, health insurance, and state and local income taxes?
In every way possible the Republican’s have been trying to get the middle class to pick up the slack for the weathy — by shielding things like the income from dividends, interest and capital gains to keep them from being taxed. They’re creating a huge disadvantage toward wages and salaries, because rates on capital gains and dividends are currently lower than rates on ordinary income — and they are proposing to reduce them even further!  
Actually there are a whole bunch of ways the Republicans are attempting to allow the wealthy to free themselves from paying federal taxes (besides the obviousness of reducing rates for upper income brackets). Those are: Savings Preferences, the Estate and Gift tax, Discriminatory Tax Rates, Depreciation Rules, Corporate Tax Integration, and as I already mentioned, the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax. That’s all really complicated stuff, but what it boils down to is more and more taxation on the middle class.
This can’t keep going on indefinitely, and if the Democrats are smart, they’ll start talking about how they’re going to put a stop to it.

Stephen, as a salve to my ego, I’m just going to assume that you really don’t like Clark as a candidate (rather than myself), since you chose to ignore my question.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 6, 2005 12:46 PM

Off topic to phx8…
You wrote:
“By the way, turns out despite warnings from the intelligence community, the Bush administration used false information to suggest Iraq was training Al Qaida terrorists. Thread by thread, the tapestry of lies surrounding the Invasion of Iraq are coming unwoven.”
Your link took me to an error page rather than that Editor and Publisher article, but I just wanted to direct you to this page that has another link to an E&P story: Did Harry Reid Hit Bill Frist This Week With The “Smoking Gun”?

Posted by: Adrienne at November 6, 2005 01:45 PM

Democrats and Republicans:
There’s no real dichotomy. These two parties simply serve to confuse and politically neuter the public, and to facilitate and conceal legislative actions that lack popular support, and allow both to use and abuse voters and tax payers, and ignore the work they should be doing to address the many pressing problems that are threatening the future of the nation.
This is nothing new, at all.
It’s been going on for thousands of years,
and it will continue until people take of their partisan blinders. The federal government, as a whole (not every person, but virtually, the entire entity) are using The People. Many are not only non-producers and provide no net benefit to society, but are harmful to society.
Some sense this, and reject the clever manipulation and distractions. But, they are, sadly, a minority at the moment.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2005 02:12 PM

The people are truly like sheep. Those the use and abuse voters want to divide the voters. The two main parties accomplish that, perfectly.

This is too true d.a.n., It’s PAST TIME to VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT!!!!!

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 6, 2005 02:41 PM

The difference is that the Republicans have allowed their fringe element to take control over their party. For some reason, moderate and reasonable republicans allow their fringe to run rampant. Where was their anger over Bush’s treatment of John McCain in South Carolina a few years back. Why did they stand idly by while Max Cleland, a Vietnam war hero was disgustingly savaged in his Georgia Senate race. If they had shown one iota of respectability in those instances, perhaps they could be taken seriously moving forward.

Democrats will not allow the same thing to happen with our party. Democratic politicians are by no means perfect but at least we hold their feet to the fire when they deserve it - and when we do so it almost always ends up hurting us politically, but at least we have our values and we stick to them. We won’t stand by and let the Democrats go too far left, nor will we allow them to sit idly by anymore while the country is pillaged.

Just plying down the middle does no good. When one side is right and the other wrong, an induced “balance” only muddles the atmosphere. It’s silly to think that there’s no difference between the parties. “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral
crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Dante

Posted by: roger at November 6, 2005 04:28 PM

Ron,
I recognize the difficulty in convincing people to overcome their brainwashing (having been a good little brainwashed Republican myself for so long).
But few have gone about trying to demonstrate the reality that incumbents from both main parties are more similar than not, based on behavior and track record (not what they say).
It’s just too bad to see these three columns, day-in and day-out, demonizing each others’ party, being sucked into the distracting partisan warfare, tit-for-tat, while ignoring the big problems that a majority of Americans actually agree upon (i.e. the most obvious, non-contentious, no-brainer problems). That’s how the PCs (“Political Class”) continue to avoid tackling tough isses that grow worse and worse each day, and voters, so entrenched in the frenzied circular pattern of thought and action, actually empower the PCs to keep doing it.
________________________________________
” I see PC people ! “

Posted by: d.a.n at November 6, 2005 04:31 PM

Dear d.a.n., and Ron Brown

But think about this - we on right and left are throwing stones at each other, no doubt. But you throw stones at both the right and the left, how does that separate you from us?

Posted by: roger at November 6, 2005 04:50 PM

On paper voting out everybody to send a message to politician sounds great. As a student of history, technology and other human factors fields, though, I have doubts.

Let’s assume that there is broad public support for such an initiative. Let’s assume that the results come in on election day, and the proponents of this have their success- a substantial portion of incumbents lose.

What now?

There’s a great book out there by Mark Buchanan, called Ubiquity about the involvement of critical states of change in dynamic systems. In any one of these, the build up of potential states to flip over is important. You have to build up the snow to have it avalanche, the dry underbrush to have an out of control fire, the number of water molecules on the verge of crystallizing in order to freeze.

I think the Republican party’s hold on power might be broken very quickly, just the way that the Democrat’s power was, and for the same reason: The party has stored up resentment and distrust across a wide swath of the country. A campaign against incumbents could potentially work. But it could only work once that way.

Anything more requires organization. It’s one thing for people to naturally push towards a cause when there’s motivation, but after that cause has been attained, there are only two ways for it to remain: One, society, having been kicked loose from the old order settles in a new one that perpetuates the system. Two, an organization is thrown up, organizing the faithful adherents, keeping the orthodox belief going.

Just one problem: we know what you folks are against, but who are you for? Obviously, many people dislike both parties, but how does that translate into an effective anti-incumbency movement? The best you might achieve would be a shift to the Democrats. I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, but I’d think many independents might prefer to avoid that.

The Anti-incumbency movement, were it to be a long-term project would soon exhaust the critical mass of resentment, would defeat its own purpose. Having tossed out the incumbents, what would follow, tossing out the people you just elected?

Why not combine the two ideas, and use this time in history to create the new major party, and organize towards that?

But that of course would mean competing for power and falling into all the standard traps of it. It would happen to any great big party that achieved sufficient power. So, the inevitable end of any such campaign, even if it picks up steam is either obsolescence or becoming what you fight.

So let’s be honest: there are no surefire solutions. Forming a viable third party would be a step in the right direction, with the understanding that there is no such thing as a perfect human government.

Which is why, regardless of whether I think certain incumbents should go, or whether a third party in America would be nice idea, that I’m sticking to my guns on what the proper way to deal with corruption and incompetence and other evils is: Because whatever happens, it remains applicable! It’s a non-partisan solution!

Adrienne-
I overlooked your question. Sorry. Honestly, knowing what I know now, I would prefer Clark to her. I’m not one of those “Hate Hillary” folks, but I think she’s just too much of a lightning rod, even by the standards of a Kerry supporter.

I have to be honest, though: I would support Kerry in a second run.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2005 05:28 PM

Stephen, that was a great post. I have one thing to add. We all (right, left, middle) have the power to change the system and ensure that the best and brightest get elected instead of the ones who work the system best. Where do these elected officials come from in the first place? They’re almost always from some sort of local origination. No one seems to pay attention to local primaries and the like. These are the breeding grounds, the farm system if you will. This is where we the people can weed out those who shouldn’t be in government. Unfortunately people have little time nor inclination to vote in these off year elections much less actually research the candidates, their true positions and how tied they are to party apparatus or not. Democracy is not a spectator sport. I’d be curious as to how many in this forum (who don’t live in VA or NJ) plan to vote this Tuesday and truly know who they’re voting for and why.

I think the two-party system works best for America, providing us with a solid sturm and drang that most parliamentary systems can’t bear. I don’t think it’s the system itself that’s the problem, it’s those who we allow to manipulate the system.

Posted by: roger at November 6, 2005 07:53 PM

Jack,
An average of 150,000 additional non-farm payroll jobs/month is a good thing, better than a net loss of jobs. However, the population is increasing, and most economists estimate 175,000 jobs should be added just to keep up with population growth. Over the past five years, the US population has increased @ 13 million, yet the economy under Bush has made a net increase of only 1 million jobs.

But as for optimism v pessimism, personally I’m still in the stock markets. I keep waiting for a quick run of 10%, perhaps driven by a drop in oil. I’m still waiting.

I’m also waiting for the usual bout of excessive optimism which characterizes the end of a market cycle. It’s not anywhere near happening, which is hard to understand. Surely a lot of investors look see the glass as half full. In addition to market factors, I attribute that to the generally depressing atmosphere of fear encouraged by the Bush administration. It makes it tough for even the most ardent backer to be optimistic to back words with investments.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2005 10:20 PM

There was a republican congressman on meet the press this morning. He said that both republicans and democrats both love to spend money. He said that the only difference between the two, is that democrats want to pay for their spending with increased taxes. The republicans want to make the next generation pay for their spending. Both ways are bad, but being a 25 year old, I would prefer the Democratic solution because I might actually get something from it, like my health care being paid for. The republicans are just giving me a bunch of interest that I will be paying in the future.
Ivan Mitchell

Posted by: Ivan Mitchell at November 6, 2005 10:22 PM

Phx8

You are smart to be invested in the market. The consequence of the bad news being over reported is that stocks are a better buy than they would be otherwise. You know: fear is a bit stronger than greed just now. Earnings have gone up for the last ten quarters. The price of gas is dropping like a stone as the petroleum bubble begins to burst. This next year will be a good one. I am betting on that. No disrespect to the U.S. , but we all should also have about a quarter of our portfolios in foreign assets just for diversity sake. Japan is finally coming back and that will be a big deal.

Of course, you know that nobody can predict the future, but you also know that stock prices are not directly related to the president’s policies. We give the president too much credit or blame.

Smart Dems can still talk trash about the economy, but they may want to make a few quiet investments.

Posted by: Jack at November 7, 2005 12:01 AM

It concerns me that the unemployment figures don’t reflect how many people are working two jobs (or more) just to make ends meet.

Posted by: Celeste at November 7, 2005 12:05 AM

It’s nice to talk about the economy as being good, or in some fantasy cases, great. This may be the case for the well-off few, but it is simply not the case for most Americans who, as Celeste points out are working more and harder. Not only that, but they’re doing it for less real dollars. Unemployment figures do not count all unemployed, they are not the slightest bit comparable to other countries’ indices and they are a simplistic measure in general when taken out of context.

Every single parameter we can go by points to American wealth being redistributed to, and hoarded by the top percentages. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history and/or sociology knows that such a top-heavy situation is bound to topple eventually through social upheaval.

The investments we need to be making are in America itself. Our infrastructure, our social safety net, our public education system and our health care delivery system need such investment badly and will reap dividends, far beyond any stock, bond or fund, that ALL americans can share.

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 12:55 AM

roger wrote: Dear d.a.n., and Ron Brown But think about this - we on right and left are throwing stones at each other, no doubt. But you throw stones at both the right and the left, how does that separate you from us?

roger,

Our goal, motives, and methods have important distinctions:

[1] It is to encourage both (or all) sides to stop the partisan warfare, because it’s a clever trap that (by design) seduces us into participation, pitting us against each other, divides us so that we can never unite on the many important issues of which we (the majority) do agree upon, distracts us from truly important issues that continuously go ignored, and distracts us from the fact that PCs (“Political Class”) are actually behind it all, and they revel in the fact that we continue to empower them to continue to use and abuse The People.

[2] Another distinction is that we’re not taking sides. We’re not looking for every flaw and fault of either party. We’re simply trying to convince and enlighten both sides of only one thing: that they both have been cleverly pitted against each other. There’s a better way. Both sides should unite, free themselves of the partisan warfare, overcome the brainwashing, and join each other to direct all of that tremendous energy and attention to solving the real root of the problem: irresponsible, corrupt, and unaccountable government composed of an arrogant Political Class that really cares little (evidenced by their irresponsibility) for The People.

[3] Ron and I and a few others are encouraging the opposite, actually. The real root of the problem is not Republicans or Democrats. The real problem is a Political Class that fuels the partisan warfare, which is (by design) a circular pattern of thought and action.

Ron Brown and a few others came upon this realization long before I did.

Yes, I too, was once seduced into wallowing in the petty partisan bickering, demonizing the other party, and using all the common tactics to label, besmirch, slander, and stain the other side, as if they were evil and somehow different from me. But, we are not that different. It’s merely a myth (among many) perpetuated the Political Class.

Therefore, we’re not really casting stones at both. We’re consistently attempting to point out that we, The People, are really alike, but we are being manipulated, and pitted against each other by a separate, smaller group, a Political Class that simply takes turns being irresponsible and unaccountable.

The Political Class fuels the divisiveness, so that we can never unite, and never realize their strategy. They use our fondness of wallowing in the partisan warfare against us, while the PCs take turns gettin’ theirs, votin’ for pork-barrel, graft, waste, and perk$ and rai$es for themselves.

We, The People, are being duped.

[4] As futile as it seems, we only want that simple fact (that The People are being manipulated) to be realized, in the best interest of The People, and the nation.

So, that’s what the difference is.
That’s what separates us.
We realize what’s going on.
We’ve overcome the brainwashing.
We’re not superior or better than anyone else.
We do not take pleasure in saying that at all.
We don’t want to control others.
We simply want to help others avoid being controled by others.
We simply want to share that simple truth with The People so they may someday overcome the divisiveness, and unite to solve the many serious issues that we (the majority of Americans) already agree upon. But, at the moment, we can not, because we have been divided (by design), and too many of us can not overcome the brainwashing. We are too entrenched in the petty, divisive, hateful, partisan warfare. And the Political Class fuels it, and too are so entrenched in the partisan warfare, so consumed by raising campaign money, gettin’ their’s, and so beholding to special interests, that they ignore The People and the serious problems growing in number and severity, that threaten the future and security of the nation.

Unfortunately, it’s simply a fact of life; a part of the human condition. There are always some that want to control and use others. Laziness fuels corruption and plunder of others. Some of them do it consciously, and some lie to themselves about it all along the way. But, they seek to control the masses. In the process, they feel superior, and reward themselves by plundering The People. These that want to control others, and cleverly use these tactics to fuel partisan warfare do so to divide and distract The People. These that want to control others are the Political Class. Some of the PCs aren’t even aware of this, or refuse to admit it. No one wants to believe they are a parasite. But, they are half the problem. The other half of the problem is The People that allow it.

Thus, one simple solution is for The People to do the most simple, easy, quick, safe, inexpensive, non-partisan, peaceful, easy to understand, easy to communicate and share, and most responsible action to peacefully force a balance of power (not simply shift) between government and the people. Vote out the incumbents, repeatedly, until they implement transparency, and become responsible, and accountable.

It sounds simple, but we have no delusions about the difficulty of overcoming the brainwashing of The People. Education is the key.

The other solution, as history has shown us, is to wait and let the problem solve itself (the hard way).

Ron, and I, and a few others merely want to share the simple truth, to possibly avoid doing it the hard way (again), no matter how futile it seems.

This blog, broken up into three categories (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) actually fuels the partisan warfare.
At one point in time, that seemed like a bad thing to me.
But, now, it seems it may be a good thing.
Perhaps, if it the partisan warfare becomes extreme enough, it may someday become distasteful enough, that people will begin to reject it, and someday, overcome the brainwashing, and reject the manipulation that divides us, and eventually may destroy us.
__________________________________________
” I see PC people ! “

Posted by: d.a.n at November 7, 2005 06:10 AM

Stephen, you are right on! The GOP is about to commit Suicide and I for one cannot wait to see it happen. This administration is the most mis-managed government I have ever seen. It is even worse than the peanut administration. We all need to ask ourselves what is the role of government? Civics 101 teaches us that the government has to do the things that states and individuals cannot do themselves.

We have alot of broken systems. Healthcare is broken, medicaid is broken, social security was broken by pilfering the treasure box.

We need to get our government working for us again. The GOP is certainly not capable and the democratics too timid. But the biggest and best thing we as citizens can do to correct some of our largest problems is to eliminate K Street. Get the lobbyist out of Washington and then maybe we can begin the process of fixing the broken systems.

Posted by: Richard at November 7, 2005 09:19 AM

Civics 101 teaches us that the government has to do the things that states and individuals cannot do themselves.

Really? Where is that written?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2005 09:50 AM

Dear d.a.n.,

There’s an element of truth in aspects of what you say, but like I sometimes do with my vitriol against the right, I think you throw way too wide a net. There are cancers on our government - at the moment the vast majority of those cancers are from the far right of the spectrum because they hold the levers of government. The democrats had their cancers as well and we’ve payed for them the better part of the past twenty years. Simply throwing everyone out, I believe, is little more than anarchy and besmirches our Founding Fathers’ ideals of a participatory democracy.

We the people are not being duped at all - we have our heads in the sand. We have the capability to make intelligent voting decisions and if we don’t, we live with the consequences. You said it yourself, laziness fuels corruption. If people didn’t respond to negative ads or stupid sound bites, no one would run them, but people do.

You and I have the same ideal - to protect the people from those who would take advantage of them. You think the enemy comes from the parties themselves, I think the enemy is the fringes of those parties and right now, the right fringes have all the power.

Welcome to the fray Richard.

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 10:08 AM

d.a.n.
I was going to answer roger, but you’ve done a better job than I would’ve.
So roger, What d.a.n. said.

Civics 101 teaches us that the government has to do the things that states and individuals cannot do themselves.

Really? Where is that written?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2005 09:50 AM

In Lib Civics 101 by Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 7, 2005 10:15 AM

Ron Brown-
Every tried to raise an army by yourself? Want to go out there and negotiate a treat without the credentials of being a national leader?

Government has its purposes. The unfortunate thing is that the right tries to jerry-rig the business community and other parts of society to fulfill them instead.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2005 10:43 AM

Ah Ron, your true colors are showing now. A right winger posing as a moderate.

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 10:52 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote….

“Just one problem: we know what you folks are against, but who are you for? Obviously, many people dislike both parties, but how does that translate into an effective anti-incumbency movement? The best you might achieve would be a shift to the Democrats. I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, but I’d think many independents might prefer to avoid that.”

“The Anti-incumbency movement, were it to be a long-term project would soon exhaust the critical mass of resentment, would defeat its own purpose. Having tossed out the incumbents, what would follow, tossing out the people you just elected?”

Stephen,

If by “you folks” you are referring to the VOID (Vote out Incumbent Democracy)advocates, what we are for is contained unambiguously in our Mission Statement. By knowing what most Americans are against gives one a very good start on understanding what we are for. Unlike groups who are “for and/or against” by statement only and, a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude we have a plan.

“Having tossed out the incumbents, what would follow, tossing out the people you just elected”?

Although it is possible that voters could elect an unsatisfactory non-incumbent candidate on occassion, the ongoing changes to government will dilute the impact of this.

Our mission is to help bring about the necessary changes in government as outlined in the mission statement proudly shown on our website http://void.poliwatch.org/. Once that is accomplished and the power of the voter has been restored, it will again be possible to reconsider incumbent re-elections.

Posted by: steve smith at November 7, 2005 10:58 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote….

“Just one problem: we know what you folks are against, but who are you for? Obviously, many people dislike both parties, but how does that translate into an effective anti-incumbency movement? The best you might achieve would be a shift to the Democrats. I wouldn’t be unhappy with that, but I’d think many independents might prefer to avoid that.”

“The Anti-incumbency movement, were it to be a long-term project would soon exhaust the critical mass of resentment, would defeat its own purpose. Having tossed out the incumbents, what would follow, tossing out the people you just elected?”

Stephen,

If by “you folks” you are referring to the VOID (Vote out Incumbent Democracy)advocates, what we are for is contained unambiguously in our Mission Statement. By knowing what most Americans are against gives one a very good start on understanding what we are for. Unlike groups who are “for and/or against” by statement only and, a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude we have a plan.

“Having tossed out the incumbents, what would follow, tossing out the people you just elected”?

Although it is possible that voters could elect an unsatisfactory non-incumbent candidate on occassion, the ongoing changes to government will dilute the impact of this.

Our mission is to help bring about the necessary changes in government as outlined in the mission statement proudly shown on our website http://void.poliwatch.org/. Once that is accomplished and the power of the voter has been restored, it will again be possible to reconsider incumbent re-elections.

Posted by: steve smith at November 7, 2005 10:59 AM

There is some kind of delay on posting that caused my post to duplicate itself. Sorry.

Posted by: steve smith at November 7, 2005 11:01 AM

Stephen et al

We may not disagree about the general idea, but we probably do about the extent.

Government has many essential functions. But it cannot and should not be in the position of taking care of what people can do for themselves.

There were a lot of complaints, for example, about the hurricane relief and some reasons to complain. But have you ever gone backpacking? You can carry enough to keep you going for a week or more on your back. And that assumes you are moving and burning a lot of calories in a fairly strenuous exercise. If you are hunkered down, you could last even longer. Anybody without supplies the day after or even two or three days after just wasn’t thinking ahead. Beyond that, looking at some of the post - Wilma lines of complaining people, it seemed that it wouldn’t hurt a lot of these guys to miss a meal or two.

Posted by: Jack at November 7, 2005 11:16 AM

Jack, government can and should do anything the people it serves want it do to. We believe that our government to ensure that our elderly, disabled, poor and otherwise susceptible members of our population are taken care of and the fairest, most efficient way to do so is through government funded by all through progressive taxation. No one wants to provide handouts, we want a strong, solid middle class which is the primary underpinning of a strong nation.

Minimal government only exists to protect those who are already well taken care of, regardless of whether they earned what they have, stole it, or inherited it.

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 11:34 AM

…our government SHOULD do…

sorry for the typo

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 11:35 AM

government can and should do anything the people it serves want it do to.

Then I’m afraid you’ll have to rewrite the constitution…

Oh wait, it just gets ignored. :( Funny thing is, if you ignore the limitations of government set forth by the constitution, then you should have no problem ignoring the other bits, like freedom of speech and religion, etc…

umm, that’s not funny, is it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2005 11:43 AM

the fairest, most efficient way to do so is through government funded by all through progressive taxation.

Except that private charities can and do a better job than the federal government. State and local governments come closer, but the problem is that an ‘entitlement’ mentality occurs and no one is ever actually HELPED. They are just made to expect to be taken care of and don’t try to stand on their own.

By targetting, through finding out who needs help and who is just wanting to avoid personal responsibility, you can help those that do need help and push avoiders into becoming fully functioning individuals.

Unless you want a large sheeplike bleating needy group of selfish individuals who will gladly give you power over their lives for the opportunity not to think, ensuring a large powerblock for your political endeavors… Oh, wait a mintue!

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2005 11:47 AM

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of that don’t you understand Rhinehold?

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 11:47 AM

Expecting charities to do the work of government will never sustain us. The problem is an “ownership society” mentality provides those that have with the cover to not help at all.

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 11:50 AM

“Unless you want a large sheeplike bleating needy group of selfish individuals who will gladly give you power over their lives for the opportunity not to think, ensuring a large powerblock for your political endeavors… Oh, wait a mintue!”

Rhinehold, inadvertently you have just given us an incredible description of America over the past five years. Thank you.

Posted by: roger at November 7, 2005 12:09 PM

My Civics 101 remark came from the experience I obtained during my Civics class in Jr. High, some 35 years ago. I am sure some of you weren’t even thought of yet.

Anyway, my government class in college also provided the same insight.

Posted by: Richard at November 7, 2005 12:17 PM

“government can and should do anything the people it serves want it do to”

I would sargue the CAN part. There are many things the government CANNOT do, even if we all want it to. You can’t have cheap gas and lots of it at the same time, for example, as we learned in the 1970s. Government is a blunt tool. It is good for some things, not for others.

But as for what the people it serves want it to do, isn’t that what we are arguing about? Of course, we give the people what is possible to give them within the bill or rights and the Constitution and we have been doing that. We elected people to give us the type of government we want. If we don’t like them, we elect others. American voters pretty consistently reject liberalism in the last thirty years. The most popular president of our lifetimes was Ronald Reagan, and no Democrat has managed to even win a majority of the American vote since Jimmy Carter. The people have spoken on this one. It is just that not everyone is listening.

As for taxes, the only groundswell we ever see is for cutting taxes, not raising them, even for the rich. If you think someone can get elected on that platform, try it.

The problem for lefties in America is that we have little taste for class warfare over an extended period of time because most of us have belonged to several different classes over our lifetimes. We just can’t work up the animosity toward people who are like what we used to be or what we hope to be in the future.

Posted by: Jack at November 7, 2005 12:39 PM

Jack-
You are correct on arguing the “can” part, though I’m certain our opinions would differ somewhat on that account on what qualifies. You are right that the government is a blunt tool, which is why I believe in something of a free market economy.

I think there is some room for debate of whether liberalism has been all that rejected. True enough, the Republicans have made advances, but many of them are simply in the coordination of their efforts and their ability to flood the media with their message. Additionally, the majorities that the Republicans enjoy are not nearly as great as the ones Democrats once did, indicating that at least half this country is at least sympathetic to the Democrats.

You’re right that Americans have little taste for outright class warfare. At least modern Americans. But this is only because people have some sort of hope about upward mobility. The more this system seems to become weighted towards satisfying the rich, the more the hostility will grow.

As far as taxes go, there may not be a groundswell for hiking taxes, but there certainly is something there for getting our fiscal house in order, and I think people could be persuaded to consent to it, even if they’re not shaking the pom-poms in outright support of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2005 12:59 PM

Stephen

Yes.

I think the system is self-correcting. In America we always have the correct government -until the next time.

We have discussed this before. I support many of the goals espoused by liberals. Most people want a clean environment, healthy people, happy children etc. Poverty benefits nobody. If you want to be simply self interested, poor people can’t afford to buy your products and they tend to create a drag on society.

But there are lots of things government can’t do. I am not talking about shouldn’t - can’t. Government by its nature is bureaucratic. It has to be bureaucratic because we cannot give government workers the same kinds of authority enjoyed by their counterparts in private industry. Bureaucracies do many things well, but they are not innovative. In fact, we will not permit our government officials to be innovative, since to be innovative is to exceed what the people have voted to authorize.

If liberals win elections and push their policies, I will accept that (with complaints). Leftists all through history and all over the world have discovered that they can’t repeal the laws of supply and demand. All policies operate within the constraints of what is possible. That is what is so frustrating for people on both ends of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Jack at November 7, 2005 01:55 PM

Jack,

“…lines of complaining people, it seemed that it wouldn’t hurt a lot of these guys to miss a meal or two”

What’s with your hatred for fat people Jack? They seem to really piss you off…You can’t seem to resist taking a stab at them at every opportunity - this must be like what? The twentieth time you’ve made some comment about them.

I’m wondering Jack, what’s with that? Were you once fat (like you were once a liberal) or were you bullied by a fat kid? :)
Perhaps you have a mean streak and this is one group of people its still socially accetable to be mean to? Do you have fat friends? Are you this mean to them?

I’m a fan of yours and like your acerbic wit but damn. What did the fatties ever do to piss you off this badly?

Posted by: Nikita at November 7, 2005 02:03 PM

Sorry, Nikita. It is too big a target for me to ignor.

I guess I don’t care for fat. I was on the way to being fat a couple years ago, but I gave up sugary Cola, skipped the Hershey bars and ran away from the problem.

I believe fat is a voluntary condition for all but around 2-3% of the population. I am not talking about being a little overweight. We can’t all be Lance Armstrong. But those guys who look like melting ice cream cones do annoy me. And what annoys me even more is that it is being called a disability that requires accommodation. I defend my country in most cases, but the fat American is too heavy a burden.

I lived in Norway for four years. I was born in Wisconsin. The people of Norway and the people of Wisconsin share a lot of ancestry. Yet Wisconsin is full of fatties. Norway is not. It is unlikely that only the fat people emigrated to the U.S., so it is not genetic destiny. There is something else going on. I have observed European diets. They are not much better than ours. You can’t get any more dietary fat than in E. Europe. The difference is that Europeans walk much more. We drive around the parking lot ten times looking for a place close to the door. It wastes gas and make us fat.

We will (are) paying a fortune in this country to support disabilities caused by fat. Besides the usual diabetes and heart disease, you even have breaking bones A fat woman I worked with was so heavy, she actually broke her ankles - twice. You think you would get the message when your bones won’t hold your bulk.

The solution to this problem is not easy, but it is within almost everyone’s power. Running has an annual cost of about $70 if you replace your shoes when they wear out. Not eating those extra Ding-Dongs and Twinkies actually saves money. Just DON’T do it.

Posted by: Jack at November 7, 2005 02:28 PM

Of course free enterprise has its place, but you must remember that true free enterprise is extremely cruel and there will always be people left behind either through their own lack of effort or by circumstance beyond their control. I believe that the government has a moral duty to help those who can’t help themselves. As for those who won’t help themselves, they are at the mercy of the system and probably make up a significant portion of the prison population.

We can not let free enterprise run amok. We have to place controls on it or we all will be in big trouble.

Posted by: Richard at November 7, 2005 04:26 PM

Jack,
“I was on the way to being fat a couple years ago”

YES!!! I knew it! I knew you were once fat. No one builds up that much venom for something they haven’t experienced first hand. :)

Seriously now, I agree with you on most of your points re. fat people. I also agree with you about europe since my european friends all claim to have gained weight since moving to good ol’ US of A. I don’t know why but it just tickles me to see europeans that think of Americans as fat and lazy move over here and gain weight.

It’s not easy to lose weight and keep it off successfully so I understand your anger against those you see as benefitting from their laziness.
However, I just think that being mean is really not the way to go about talking to (or about) fat people. I mean, it’s not like fat people are not aware that they are fat. Ugly people on the other hand…

So, overweight people are “too big a target” to ignore?
He he. You slay me, you really do.

Lighten up Jack and get yourself a donut while you’re at it :)

Posted by: Nikita at November 7, 2005 05:44 PM

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What part of that don’t you understand Rhinehold?

Well, the part that gives the federal government the right to violate the 10th amendment. What part of that preamble to the Consitution, detailing why the Constitution was enacted, gives the federal government that right?

“Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Cons