#81869 by PatrickHenry on 6/27 at 2:18 pm

<<I don’t necessarily believe in a few bar charts from the Washington Post to support the economy is better off under Bush theory and they don’t reflect that.>>

They’re not from the Washington Post - they’re from a Stephen Rose study, cited in the Post.  He’s a Democrat economist who served in Clinton’s Labor Dept., among other things.  Here’s the actual article from the post that summarizes the study:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/articl e/2007/05/29/AR2007052902001.html

<<What I do believe is the incredible amount of deficit spending going on (8+ trillion) which has created many of the “new” wealthy whose income is derived from military-industrial, pharma-insurance sources.>>

As a percentage of GDP, the national debt is smaller than at any time during Clinton’s Presidency.  And the deficit has been decreasing since the tax cuts.

I haven’t seen any figures on who the new wealthy are that substantiate your claim.  In fact, many of the new wealthy were previously middle class.  And it’s not like the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share in taxes - the tax burden on the wealthy is higher than at any time during history, just as it’s lower on the poor than at any time.

<<This is one reason the dollar is tanking overseas, oil is getting more expensive (actually its worth the same only the dollars are worth less).>>

Oil rises and falls - it always has.  It’s a global phenomenon, not just the US (whose gas prices are far lower than in most other countries).  Oil prices are largely the result of global supply and demand.

<<Why do you think they quit publishing the M3 money supply report.>>

“They” is the Fed - which is not controlled by Bush or Congress.  Their stated reason was cost.  I’ll leave that to others to dispute.

<<Time to slash the military budget, get out of the overseas bases or make them exclusivly NATO, have our navy ships defend our shores and make the National Guard national again (As in the U.S.)>>

That’s a valid opinion and I won’t argue with it… not because I agree, but because you’re entitled to it.

re: #81725 by Cathy on 6/27 at 6:19 am

Cathy - the SS privatization proposal was for a partial and voluntary privatization.  The idea was that dealing with SS’s problems now would be difficult, but far less so than dealing with them later.  Privatization would contribute to the system by increasing returns and giving people, like you and me, more flexibility and control over their retirement - with the option to leave things as they are as well.

re: #81840 by Billy the Dik on 6/27 at 1:03 pm

<<The big beef that conservatives have with Social Security is that it does nothing for the rich. >>

EVERYONE pays into SS, so improvements in the system would by definition benefit everyone.  Are you against allowing all of us, including the poor, greater control over their money?

I don’t necessarily believe in a few bar charts from the Washington Post to support the economy is better off under Bush theory and they don’t reflect that.

What I do believe is the incredible amount of deficit spending going on (8+ trillion) which has created many of the “new” wealthy whose income is derived from military-industrial, pharma-insurance sources.

Its easy to juke the stats when you have the keys to the printing presses and when the money is backed by .... nothing. 

This is one reason the dollar is tanking overseas, oil is getting more expensive (actually its worth the same only the dollars are worth less).

Why do you think they quit publishing the M3 money supply report.

Time to slash the military budget, get out of the overseas bases or make them exclusivly NATO, have our navy ships defend our shores and make the National Guard national again (As in the U.S.)

Regarding “a discrediting of the conservative era,” please see http://www.democraticcritique.us for a fundamental criticism of the conservative mind. Thanks.

#81572 by PatrickHenry on 6/26 at 3:16 pm

<<Marshall, are you really Carl Rove?>>

Patrick, do you want to actually respond to my points?

Marshall, are you really Carl Rove?

Language changes. Queer no longer means what it once did. The word, queer is no longer usable except as a slur. Liberal is no different. The word has become useless and may as well be dropped. Liberation, after its misuse to describe the invasion of Iraq may go the same way.

I believe most have given up the word liberal and simply moved on to progressive. A double word like compassionate conservative is harder to mangle but already compassionate conservative is understood to be someone compassionate only towards those who think and act exactly as they do.

#81364 by Enemy of State on 6/25 at 7:34 pm

Enemy:

<<its become increasing obvious that we have a serious, and rapidly growing income distribution problem.>>

That’s correct - while the number of familes classified as “poor” is down only slightly since 1979, the number of families considered “wealthy” has increased dramatically.  Here’s a graph from, of all places, the Leftington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphi c/2007/05/30/GR2007053000068.html

<<Its increasing becoming the case that only the top 1% (and especially the top .1%) are getting ahead.>>

This is just plain wrong as the data above shows.

<<Cutting taxes does not increase tax revenues. Nor is there any evidence that tax rates and economic growth rates are correlated.>>

Federal tax revenues have increased since both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts - this is a fact.

Tax cuts by Coolidge in the 1920s, Kennedy in the 1960s, Reagan in the 1980s and, now, Bush in the 2000s all resulted in faster economic growth.  Look at the data. Your “one off” scenario has lasted for six years now and counting.  Current real GDP is higher than at anytime in history and is growing steadily.  In 2000, GDP was growing at 1.5% annually on average and has doubled since the cuts to 3.2%.

http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/gdp_answer.php?CHKnominalGDP =on&CHKrealGDP=on&CHKnominalGDP_percap=on&CHKre alGDP_percap=on&year1=1995&year2=2005

<<You cannot compare Social Security returns with retirement investment plans, as Social Security is also an insurance program.>>

Bush’s plan was for partial privatization, not full, and allowed optional market participation.  There’s no reason I know of to believe that an “insurance” program can’t benefit from market economics as do other retirement plans - I’d at least like that choice, since I have NO choice about having the money deducted.

<<Bush’s claim that his plan was about improving the investment returns was a sham, the real goal was to dismantle a New Deal program.>>

Those are one and the same.  The reason to dismantle the New Deal program is because it is inflexible, performs poorly, and is a money pot for govt. accounting practices.

Marshal:

  While its true that the aggregate economic measures have been good, its become increasing obvious that we have a serious, and rapidly growing income distribution problem. The Republicans will only give ideological responses like taxes are bad. Its increasing becoming the case that only the top 1% (and especially the top .1%) are getting ahead. If this trend goes far enough our social stability will be threatened.

  Cutting taxes does not increase tax revenues. Nor is there any evidence that tax rates and economic growth rates are correlated. It is true a tax cut will provide a one off transitory stimulus. Politicians are all too keen to conflate this with sustainable economic growth.

  You are largely correct about outsourcing. Far more jobs are lost to the technological change that drives the productivity growth.

  US debt, both government and private used to be overwhelming owned by Americans. So the argument could be made that they don’t really matter. But now the majority of both are foreign owned. Particularly by the Peoples Bbank of China. The transfer of wealth out of the country is now about 6.5% of the GDP. Nearly all economists consider this to be unsustainable. The unwinding of this imbalance is going to be unpleasant, and probably will begin within the next few years.

  Contrary to overwhelming popular belief the Social Security system is not running out of money. The projections that show that are based on unrealistically low future growth rates. For any reasonable growth rate the problem goes away. You cannot compare Social Security returns with retirement investment plans, as Social Security is also an insurance program. Bush’s claim that his plan was about improving the investment returns was a sham, the real goal was to dismantle a New Deal program.

#81172 by neldob on 6/25 at 6:54 am

<<“The Left” actually is more rational on the economy and employment.  burying our children in debt is how Republicans have dealt with fiscal issues.>>

I think it’s hard to argue with the current 4.5% unemployment rate and a strong economy.  As a percentage of GDP, current US debt is lower than it was in the 90s.  What the left can’t seem to understand, despite current proof, is that tax receipts *increase* when income tax is reduced.  A Dem economy would see higher taxes, thus squelching economic performance.

<<Their tax initiatives reward wealth and punish work.>>

Hard to make that case when working class taxes have gone down, productivity has gone up, and business (the engine of “work”) is thriving.

<<When corporations are encouraged by tax breaks to outsource it is a legitimate issue.>>

Outsourcing hasn’t happened.  Aside from phone support and other low-skill, low-pay jobs - it’s a non issue.  Besides, its easily countered by “insourcing”, which gets no coverage.

<<Republican social security initiatives were unsupported by most people despite W’s best efforts.>>

Sad but true.

The “left” is anybody who doesn’t agree with the current administration.

Ron Paul would be “Right” but he’s catagorized as a libertarian.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the only ones who truly represent the middle class in this country, therefore the only worthy candidates.

How about the issues that “The Left” has no unified opinion on, or is out of step with public opinion?  Immigration?  Social Security reform?  National Security and ME policy including preemption?

The left has also lost several of its previous election season issues to the lense of reality: the economy, the deficit, “outsourcing” (a bogus issue from the start), employment.

Health care is a legitimate issue - no doubt.  I applaud the left for taking it seriously (even though I disagree with its proposed knee jerk solutions).

“Guess that makes me a pariah here…so be it!”

  Actually it makes you a Skruff!

  The comments/blog would be pointless if we all agreed.

Billy the Dik:
  Yes, true liberty is freedom from deception and based on self responsibility! No one who values liberty should object to laws that coincide with ones responsibility to community and environment. Free citizen doesn’t equal sociopath. Sound law is to strengthen true liberty.

Nelbo:
  Yup. The rebublicons support:1. The war on drugs. 2. The opposition to homosexual rights. 3. Abstinence as the only sexual policy among youth. 4. The suppression of alternative medicine. 5. The invasion of personal privacy and over riding of constitutional rights to combat an utterly vague enemy called “terrorism” or simply “evil doers.’ 6. The taxation of American citiizens to the extreme to fund above mentioned war. 7. The thwarting of abortion rights. 8 the genral subordination of individual rights and cncerns to thoseof corporations and a small elite.
  Problem. To a slightly lesser extent, so do the Democrats.

#80987 by Skruff
  If I thought you’re argument held no merit, then i would just ignore you.
  Like I said, I don’t think so called Nanny Laws should protect the individual from himself or from voluntary interaction with others.
  You list off a lot of things not necessarily related. A lot of those local restrictions come down from big business, not from socialist concerns. Its real estate companies that want your neighborhood to look a certain way. Maybe the neighbor hood association, I don’t know, but it comes down to property values. The seat belt laws have a relation to insurance companies, and state insurance rates.
  Oh and what if socialized medicine meant you didn’t have to buy medical insurance? You’d rather pay a mega corp you’re money and make an elite ridiculously wealthy than chip on helping those who can’t afford insurance?
  As far as your kid in the car, goes. The law does have the right to protect your kid from your negligence.
  So far as your family lineage goes, did Grandpa smoke cigs with 300 chemicals in them? Did he grow up eating MacDonalds? Was his food irradiated and genetically modified? Did his lifestyle involve enough physical work to utilize all the fat he ate? Was the rain forest being mowed down to provide his beef? Was his car one of a billion? Conditions change with time.

The whole “Nanny-state” diatribe was coined by corporate spin doctors lobbying for tobacco companies.
  I’m as much a libertarian (regarding civil liberites,)as i am a socialist. I don’t want the government regulating what I do, even if its in “my best interest.” I doubt many here do.
  But the fact is that for the most part, the so-called left is stronger on “individual liberties” than the so-called right. The republicans want corporations to have license and individuals to be thwarted. Do I even need to elaborate with example?
  There are indeed Nanny laws out there. I find them disturbing.
  For the most part its due to the republicans as much as the dems. The laws wind up regulating the individuals rather than the corporations.
  I figure if people want to gobble junk food, smoke, guzzle booze and the rest, then fine, whatever. It does raise a question with regard to Universal health care. Should the tax payers pay for self inflicted disease. So, the system would have to be calibrated accordingly.
  But moreover, do corporations really have an inherent right to advertise poisons? Bo they have the right to persuade the masses to gobble poison? Woud these illusory “staunch individualists” and “flinty, true grit” determiners of their own destiny really want this crap if they hadn’t had it marketed to them since they were little children?

Unfortunately, the only difference between liberals and conservatives, lately has been that liberals feel guilty about doing things that conservatives do without conscience. But in the end the middle class keeps shrinking.

Liberals, spend too much time trying to figure out how to qualify as a victim, or to help victims so they can be seen as the savior of a class of victims. Otherwise there isn’t much difference between Conservatives or Liberals.

I noticed the other day that Rapper 50 cent, has to go back to court because the $25,000 a month he pays for “child Support” isn’t enough for the mother of his child.

In a nutshell, this personifies the threat that Americans face from the left, things done for your own good, that are really done for the good of the same corporations, that Republicans did for cold hard cash…

Finding the center in American politics has become a game of blind-mans bluff. And so I’ll ask, who’s going to pin the tail on the Donkey? Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or Gore?

Methinks the minority parites need to collaborate, balance out their strengths and form a single party. I am thinking along the Libertarians views on personal freedoms and minimal cop-state with Green Party vehemence on socialized necessities and environmental protection.
  Creating a Middle from balancing extreme left and right (in the present sense of the terms,) instead of trying to strike middle ground by being wishy washy on everything.

#80470 by Mike Mid-City

  Hippie is generally a somewhat passe term, more specified to the Grateful Deadish, Rainbow Family crowd, based muchly in the Bay Area to Eugen OR. I prefer to be called a FREAK!!!

I agree that just because a majority of Americans are now against the war, it does not necessarily follow that a majority of Americans are swinging to the left. It’s a good thing, mind you, but I don’t think that one logically follows the other as closely as Mr. Dionne seems to. I mean, I *hope* he’s right, but I’ve become a little cynical these past six years…

That said:

Liberals need to embrace who they are. I’ve been saying it for years. Being timid in our convictions is what got us to eight years of Bush rule. Let us stand for what we believe in. If America is not yet ready, then we will be a vocal, strong opposition until they are. But hiding under some mythical “middle ground” is not the way to go. Compromise and negotiation work great when both parties start from strong, separated positions. But if the right starts from the far right, and the “left” starts from the middle…where do you suppose the compromise ends up?

I don’t think anything will change until the governed are able to seperate power and wealth from each other in the same way that church and state are supposed to be. In fact I’m willing to bet that separating the former two is probably the key to forever keeping the latter in their places.

The only option I see is Internet-based total public awareness and the outlawing of any official secrecy in the public’s domain.

I suppose a new twist to an old idea might only trade one dystopia for another but at least it would be different.