Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Reagan Didn’t Do It

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 3, 2009
Ronald Reagan
Reagan Library

By Robert Scheer

How could Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics and author of generally excellent columns in The New York Times, get it so wrong? His column last Sunday—“Reagan Did It”—which stated that “the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers,” is perverse in shifting blame from the obvious villains closer at hand.

It is disingenuous to ignore the fact that the derivatives scams at the heart of the economic meltdown didn’t exist in President Reagan’s time. The huge expansion in collateralized mortgage and other debt, the bubble that burst, was the direct result of enabling deregulatory legislation pushed through during the Clinton years.

Ronald Reagan’s signing off on legislation easing mortgage requirements back in 1982 pales in comparison to the damage wrought 15 years later by a cabal of powerful Democrats and Republicans who enabled the wave of newfangled financial gimmicks that resulted in the economic collapse.

Reagan didn’t do it, but Clinton-era Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, now a top economic adviser in the Obama White House, did. They, along with then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and Republican congressional leaders James Leach and Phil Gramm, blocked any effective regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives that turned into the toxic assets now being paid for with tax dollars.

Reagan signed legislation making it easier for people to obtain mortgages with lower down payments, but as long as the banks that made those loans expected to have to carry them for 30 years they did the due diligence needed to qualify creditworthy applicants. The problem occurred only when that mortgage debt could be aggregated and sold as securities to others in an unregulated market.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The growth in that unregulated OTC market alarmed Brooksley Born, the Clinton-appointed head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and she dared propose that her agency regulate that market. The destruction of the government career of the heroic and prescient Born was accomplished when the wrath of the old boys club descended upon her. All five of the above mentioned men sprang into action, condemning Born’s proposals as threatening the “legal certainty” of the OTC market and the world’s financial stability.

They won the day with the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which put the OTC derivatives beyond the reach of any government agency or existing law. It was a license to steal, and that is just what occurred. Between 1998 and 2008, the notational value of the OTC derivatives market grew from $72 trillion to a whopping $684 trillion. That is the iceberg that our ship of state has encountered, and it began to form on Bill Clinton’s watch, not Reagan’s.

How can Krugman ignore the wreckage wrought during the Clinton years by the gang of five? Rubin, who convinced President Clinton to end the New Deal restrictions on the merger of financial entities, went on to help run the too-big-to-fail Citigroup into the ground. Gramm became a top officer at the nefarious UBS bank. Greenspan’s epitaph should be his statement to Congress in July 1998 that “regulation of derivatives transactions that are privately negotiated by professionals is unnecessary.” That same week Summers assured banking lobbyists that the Clinton administration was committed to preventing government regulation of swaps and other derivatives trading.

Then-Rep. Leach, as chairman of the powerful House Banking Committee, codified that concern in legislation to prevent the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or anyone else from regulating the OTC derivatives, and American Banker magazine reported that the legislation “sponsored by Chairman Jim Leach is most popular with the financial services industry because it would provide so-called legal certainty for swaps transactions. … ”

Legal certainty for swaps—meaning the insurance policies of the sort that AIG sold for collateralized debt obligations without looking too carefully into what was being insured and, more important, without putting aside reserves to back up the policies in the case of defaults—is what caused the once respectable company to eventually be taken over by the U.S. government at a cost of $185 billion to taxpayers.

Leach, an author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed banks like Citigroup to become too big to fail, is now a member of the board of directors of ProPublica, which bills itself as “a non-profit newsroom producing journalism in the public interest.” Leach serves as the chair of a prize jury that ProPublica has created to honor “outstanding investigative work by governmental groups,” and perhaps he will grant one retrospectively to Brooksley Born and the federal commission she ran so brilliantly before Leach and his buddies destroyed her.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: GM’s Fall and the Cars of My Youth

Next item: Myth of the Lone Shooter



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, February 28, 2010 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Moment thinking by the populace is what got the populace in this Right-Wing quandary and moment thinking is not going to get the populace out of the Right-Wing’s quandary that was 40 years in the making. 

Both Capitalism and Socialism can form a government, it’s the three class and cultural divisions, that are the rub for the Nobles and Nearly Nobles.  Dividing the Nobles, the Nearly Nobles and the Common Population equally provides more acceptable representation politically for the Common Population, that is not being represented, and a Multi-Party Political System under these divisions provides representation, and a government would be formed; but when it is formed everyone would be represented in government according to the strength of their political power, which is conducive to uniting the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

A Multi-Party Political System doesn’t mean our government must change from Capitalism, because the capitalists already use Socialism, corporations are socialist organizations for the few.

As I said before, moment thinking will not get the populace out of the Right-Wing’s quandary.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, February 28, 2010 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Moment thinking by the populace is what got the populace in this Right-Wing quandary and moment thinking is not going to get the populace out of the Right-Wing’s quandary. 

Both Capitalism and Socialism can form a government, it’s the three class and cultural divisions, that are the rub for the Nobles and Nearly Nobles.  Dividing the Nobles, the Nearly Nobles and the Common Population equally provides more acceptable representation politically for the Common Population, that is not being represented, and a Multi-Party Political System under these divisions provides representation, and a government would be formed; but when it is formed everyone would be represented in government according to the strength of their political power, which is conducive to uniting the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

A Multi-Party Political System doesn’t mean our government must change from Capitalism, because the capitalists already use Socialism, corporations are socialist organizations for the few.

As I said before, moment thinking will not get the populace out of the Right-Wing’s quandary.

Report this

By ardee, February 28, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm #

Yes, martha, youre right..or is it Thoms G?

Dammit, K, you made me spill my coffee laughing so hard.

Report this

By Eric, February 28, 2010 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here we are, almost a year later, and I am so let down by the Obama administration that I can barely write.  For three years I have been fighting nuclear power in Texas, watched as corrupt politicians and economic elites pushed a nuclear agenda with backroom deals, lies and deceit, control of local politicians, etc. and never would have thought that a so-called progressive, first African-American president would carry the water for the nuclear power industry.  Yet, that is what he has done.  So now, banks and Wall Street are back raping working people with absolutely no changes in their behaviour, there is no universal health care and there won’t be, we still have government supporting religious institutions, charter schools are growing at the expense of our public schools, I don’t see one single new solar panel anywhere where I live, and now Obama has not only given a green light to the most odious energy source known to man, he is raising the loan guarantees for this insanity to $80 billion.  I am so disgusted.  The only word that comes to mind is corruption.  And I think our entire country is being run by nothing but corrupt politicians representing the interests of the oil, gas and nuclear industry.  These three industries keep the military industrial complex running and care nothing about the consequences of their actions.  I thank Ronald Reagan for introducing the concept of greed as a way of life and government.  And making corruption a moral and acceptable trait.  My optimism is dissipating.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, February 27, 2010 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

The populace has to reform the Democratic Party through an en masse revolt against the DLC leading the Democratic Party, instead of the populace.

Report this

By diamond, February 27, 2010 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA I never said socialists can’t form government. Socialist parties have formed governments all over the world but the idea that a green or socialist party will ever form government in America any time soon is a pipe dream. Because of historical factors and extensive brainwashing of the population in America it’s extremely unlikely, so voting for this kind of party is a way of dealing yourself out of the political game. It may not stay that way forever but at each election each voter has to deal with the facts as they are, not as they want them to be.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, August 6, 2009 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

diamond,

diamond said: “The socialist party eh? Well that explains your ‘a plague on both your houses’ attitude. An attitude you are absolutely entitled to, even if it’s highly unlikely the socialists will ever be in government. I never vote for people who can’t form government: I can’t see the point.”

MarthaA’s answer:  I take your post to be hollow political sophistry, but in case it is nothing more than ignorance on your part, I am responding as follows:

Both Capitalism and Socialism can form a government, it’s the three class and cultural divisions, that are the rub for the Nobles and Nearly Nobles.  Dividing the Nobles, the Nearly Nobles and the Common Population equally provides more acceptable representation politically for the Common Population, that is not being represented, and a Multi-Party Political System under these divisions provides representation, and a government would be formed; but when it is formed everyone would be represented in government according to the strength of their political power, which is conducive to uniting the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION. 

A Multi-Party Political System doesn’t mean our government must change from Capitalism, because the capitalists already use Socialism, corporations are socialist organizations for the few.

Unless you want an autocratic CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING KING, all three divisions of the population of a nation must have leaders representing their division in Congress in order to form a DEMOCRATIC government; the Nobles, the Nearly Nobles and the Common Population; therefore, when all divisions are represented a government can be formed that will work for the people, instead of against the people of the common population. Unless all dividing factions of government are represented, there will continue to be selective democracy for the Nobles and the Nearly Nobles, and no democracy for the COMMON POPULATION, as there would continue to be NO REPRESENTATION of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

A government will always be formed, either it will be a single party government or a coalition government, that is something you do not have to worry about, a government will always be formed, the biggie is not whether or not a government can or can not be formed, the biggie is about whether or not the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION is represented in the government that is formed, and at the present time the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION is NOT REPRESENTED in the government of the United States.

In a country with an institutionalized Multi-Party Political System, the largest political party can often form a government independently.  In the event that factional division within the largest political party makes it impossible for the largest political party to form a government, a Multi-Party government, a coalition government, would be formed to represent all political factions vying for political control within the government.

When saying that a government can’t be formed, only an idiot would believe that a government couldn’t be formed, what is being said is that a government can’t be formed by the largest political party due to political factionalization within the largest political party and that as a result, a government is formed that is inclusive of the largest political party as well as competing political parties.

Report this

By diamond, June 12, 2009 at 1:03 am Link to this comment

Kdelphi, Bush would never be allowed near anthrax any more than he was allowed near 9/11. He wasn’t even allowed to testify at the rigged private hearing to the 9/11 Commission without Cheney at his side. People always bring up how dumb Bush is so they can claim the neo cons’ weren’t involved in both these attacks, because allegedly his incompetence makes it impossible. But in fact he was always a figurehead and nothing more. Cheney ran both these operations and he and Rumsfeld presided over the kidnappings and torture and the wars. The socialist party eh? Well that explains your ‘a plague on both your houses’ attitude. An attitude you are absolutely entitled to, even if it’s highly unlikely the socialists will ever be in government. I never vote for people who can’t form government: I can’t see the point.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA—Youre welcome! lol…

diamond—I already know about the anthrax—but you sure as hell havent convinced me that the Bush Adminis had the smarts to put anthrax in an envelope without infecting himself!! YOu really think he stayed straight through chemistry class??

Clinton placed the “surplus” on the back of the poor, with “welfare reform” and more tax cuts. samo/samo. BOTH PARTIES DO THE SAME THING—one just looks a little better doing it.

Bush ran up the deficit, so did Obama.I dont give a damn about deficits or surpluses, I give a damn about who pays for them. IF Dem Team Obama hadnt pushed the bailout through the Senate, and had allowed the Sanders (and other) Amendments to go through, the criminals would be paying for, at least some of their own mess. I will never forgive the Dems for that. I never thought GOP were worth a crap anyway. I cannot actually describe how I feel about the GOP.

Have you tried whitehouse.gov or change.gov for employment—-they really should be paying you. But Obama has always counted on “volunteers”, even though he has been a multi-millionaire for years.He plans to send out 1000s of “message machines” in 2012—-his campaign managers words…

I hate Bush & Co so much I find them hardly worth mentioning. Why wont Obama and Holder indict them then?? They are war criminals. If Obama doesnt indict them, he is complicit.

Obana has ( i repeat , once again) the House the Senate and the presidency. He is , quite possibly, the most powerful man in the world. He has a huge approval rating—but not for long, I suspect. In 2003, he said that, if he had “the presidency, the House and the Senate”, he would be able to “stop the war”, “start single payer health care” and all kinds of other campaign promises…he lied. But he always hedge his bets, and people just keep saying “better than Bush”—Bush is to be blamed for setting USAns expectations so low that down looks up! Obama could declare himself royalty and get away with it..to say he doesnt have the “power” is just ridiculous. He is doing exactly what he wants to do…unless you think he is easily pushed around, in which case, he sould let someone else do it.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow. Defending Obama IS ONE thing—nobody defends Clinton anymore! NAFTA, “welfare reform”, the fake Dayton Peace Accords, he was full of it.And everyone with a brain knows it.

I an neither party. I belong to the Socialist Party, and never more proud of it, than now,with both parties on the take on Wall St.

Report this

By diamond, June 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment

Well Kdelphi, you certainly have the neo con ideology down pat, ‘The truth is what I say it is’. Clinton had a surplus but it wasn’t real? That’s funny, I can remember hectic debates over what they were going to do with all that money. They need not have worried: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and all the other neo cons, elected and unelected, knew exactly what to do with it - piss it up against a wall. And that’s what they did. So if Clinton’s surplus wasn’t real does that mean Bush’s (trillions of dollars of) deficit is also not real? You say you don’t support the Republicans but one thing’s clear - you hate the Democrats with a passion. Obama doesn’t (yet) have the power to do what needs to be done. He has to go to the Republicans, cap in hand, for everything and whose fault is that? Those voters, who knowing everything that the Republicans have done, still found a way to believe it wasn’t ‘real’ and vote for them. Republicans made sure that Joe Lieberman got re-elected too as an ‘independent’,knowing how useful he is to their ideology and their agenda. You won’t get any argument from me that the political culture in America is perverted but you have to look at who it benefits. Which party controls the media, which party has had the most Presidents in the last twenty or thirty years, which party is most in tune with the song the Pentagon and the CIA sing? The Republicans, of course. They have bent and warped the system out of shape because it benefits them, not the Democrats. Ironic therefore that you blame the Democrats for a system which cripples their chances of ever changing anything and keeps them out of government - as it’s meant to. The anthrax attacks were unmistakably the work of the neo cons and the CIA and many credible experts have said so:

Dr. Gerry Andrews, a microbiologist, wrote in the New York Times that when (Bruce) Ivins’ team looked at the powder they found that it was ‘startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparations, the likes of which had never been seen before by the personnel at Fort Detrick’.  Andrews also made ‘an astonishing allegation’ namely, ‘It is extremely improbable that this type of preparation could ever have been produced at Fort Detrick, certainly not of the grade and quality found in that envelope.’ So, whodunnit? Francis Boyle suggests in his book, ‘Biowarfare and Terrorism’ , that if the FBI had pursued a proper investigation the evidence would have ‘led directly back to a secret but officially sponsored U.S. government biowarfare program that was illegal and criminal, in violation of (the) biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.’ The New York Times made a similar claim on September 4th 2001. Namely that:
‘the United States has embarked on a program of secret research on biological weapons that, some officials say, tests the limits of the global treaty banning such weapons…earlier this year, administration officials said, the Pentagon drew up plans to engineer genetically a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax.’

It was always going to be less problematic for the FBI to pursue Bruce Ivins than its own government, meaning the CIA and the Pentagon, and to expose the secret and illegal program that made and supplied the weapons grade anthrax. In the same way that Steven Hatfill was hounded by the FBI for three years until exonerated by a trial and paid compensation, Bruce Ivins was subjected to a Kafkaesque nightmare. But Kdelphi we know whodunnit don’t we? It was the Clintons disguised as CIA operatives.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi:

Thank you for the compliment.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Yes, martha, youre right..or is it Thoms G?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2009 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi,

I am a constituent of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, it makes sense to me and everyone that is a constituent of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a class and culture that knows their best interest, maybe not YOU.  Since, you aren’t a constituent, of course it doesn’t make sense to YOU.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA—Martha, please stop with the 70% common stuff…it is not a statistic that makes sense.

Yep, thats me, stupid and extremely wealthy! A troll as you said in one post—you got me!!

sigh…

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2009 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

KDelphi,

That’s true, Wellstone did not represent the 20% Professional Middle Class DLC-PPI as a political singularity, as does the majority of the present Democratic Party.  Wellstone made it plain that he represented the democratic wing of the Democratic Party as opposed to the right autocratic wing of the Democratic Party.

If what you say is true about yourself, then you must NOT be a part of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, a commoner, because if you were, from what you say, you would be agreeable with disenfranchising your vote in favor of the 20% minority Professional Middle Class DLC-PPI political singularity in the Democratic Party, against the best interest of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.  I’m not taking what you have said as if you are stupid, so if you are willing to disenfranchise your own vote, you must not be a commoner, but a part of the 20% Professional Middle Class DLC-PPI political singularity or the 10% American aristocracy.

Report this

By haroldmh, June 11, 2009 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MarthaA

You wrote, ” a Multi-Party Political System would be difficult for assassins to kill off”.

Indeed it would, but not nearly as difficult, probably impossible without insurrection, to establish in our country precisely for the reasons cited in the website posts.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2009 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

haroldmh,

OK, you are one of the ones that are splitting the vote and causing it to be difficult to reform the Democratic Party, so that the Democratic Party can be used to promulgate laws through Congressional action to institutionalize a new Multi-Party Political System in the United States

Winning and losing is a FALSE FRAME, with regard to REFORM of the United States political system and a political movement that will affect that reform; it’s a political process, NOT contentious.

There is a causal relationship between voting in the Democratic Party Primaries to REFORM the Democratic Party that will result, eventually, in representation of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION. 
Voting your conscience for a non-institutionalized party may be self-gratifying for you, but will not have any causal effect with regard to eventual representation of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION in the Congress of the United States.

We have all considered Ralph Nader and voted for him a time or two, trying to compete with the institutionalized political duopoly existent in the United States by means of a non-institutionalized 3rd Party; this does not work, the requirements to qualify candidates are intentionally made onerous in to prevent 3rd Party contention with institutionalized candidates of the existing duopoly.

INDEPENDENT isn’t an actual party, INDEPENDENT is a position separating one politically as an individual and works as a means for politicians, like Joe Lieberman who was justly kicked out of the Democratic Party, for lack of representation of his own constituents, to be able to defy his constituents and remain in Congress against the will of his constituents, by using the support of constituents of the other party, the Republican Party, that he had been representing that caused his removal.  Furthermore, if all 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION all registered as Independents or Greens they wouldn’t be able to have a vote in the Democratic Party Primaries at all, which would castrate the whole 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION politically. 

Both your website posts are good arguments for the need of a Multi-Party Political System in the United States that will allow diverse political representation, and discourage formation of a tyrannical government by either one party or a two-party duopoly.

A Multi-Party Political System would create circumstances where differing and diverse constituencies from differing and diverse political parties would be required to form a government; this would in effect create a MANDATE for differing and diverse political opinion within a government, that would represent ALL of the people; otherwise a government could not be formed.

Whenever there is a Multi-Party Political System, if the existing political parties fail to represent their constituencies, their constituents are free to form new political parties to represent them, and divest themselves of those who would represent their own special interests to the exclusion of their constituents interests.

A Multi-Party Political System is untidy, differing constituencies have differing views, but a Multi-Party Political System would make it very difficult for one party to form a government and exercise control against the will of the people, like what has happened with only two parties here in the United States, because the will of the people will be represented by their elected leaders in government and each of their concerns will have to be addressed in order to form a government.

And, there is safety in numbers, a Multi-Party Political System would be difficult for assassins to kill off all opposing views of the differing constituencies from a lot of small political parties that are all institutionalized with a level playing field for all parties in the Congress of the United States, therefore untidy is good in this case.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 11, 2009 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

MarthaA—Can I make one kindly intentioned suggestion? (Yes, you can make one for me)

There is some good stuff in there, but, I keep getting ADD’d over the all caps 70% common population stuff…it really interferes with any message you are trying to make.

Except, lets PLEASE stop tryng to “bring democracy” to South America (ie Chicago School Capitalism)

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2009 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

diamond,

Clinton’s reelection was ONLY the best choice in rotten apples, and nothing more.

Mainstream media has become a huge propaganda tool of CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICANS and their Democratic Party DLC-PPI toadies.

Simply throwing out a slew of corrupt Democrats is not the solution; continued REPLACEMENT of corrupted DLC-PPI Democrats is the solution.  The 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION’S interest should be in electing a NEW GROUP of Democrats and replacing the corrupt leaders that forget from whence they came, as they are required to deal with the “moneyed” Republicans that’s business is to corrupt them with money.  Replacing the corrupted is done through PRIMARY ELECTIONS, and can be done ONLY by Democrats; therefore, the entire 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION should all register as Democrats for this very purpose until the job is completed and our nation has a multi-party institutionalized political system.

NO voting for a REPUBLICAN will ever be necessary for any member of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, as none of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION are constituents of the Republican Party, not even one.  Voting REPUBLICAN for any member of the MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION is not a choice.  The 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION cannot reform the Republican Party, but there is hope for reformation of the Democratic Party through the political system set up for reformation of the Democratic Party, if WE THE PEOPLE of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION will use the system vigilantly.

What do the Republicans have to smile about when the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION realize their power to replace Democrats in the Democratic Party, that VOTE Republican, with Democrats that VOTE for the agenda of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION? 

When you vote in the Democratic Party Primary, you can knock the DLC-PPI incumbents off the ballot and prevent them from ever being on the ballot in the General Election, which is what must be done.  If we can’t get them all, get them next time, REFORM IS GRADUAL, is never finished, and can only be done in the Democratic Party, the party to represent the Left. 

If WE THE PEOPLE will unite to REFORM the Democratic Party, we can use the Democratic Party to legislate an institutionalized Multi-Party Political System, so that WE THE PEOPLE no longer have to continue with an institutionalized duopolistic political system that does not represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

You have presented a FALSE FRAME when you say, “I don’t see how that can be done by constantly attacking the Democrats.”  People rise and fall on their OWN merit.  Reforming and attacking are absolutely different, completely opposite, in fact; REFORMING is constructive without destructive purpose, while ATTACKING is destructive without constructive purpose.  This post is about REFORMING the Democratic Party, replacing the DLC-PPI corporate toadies that have infested the Congress and represent only their own class and culture with people like Paul Wellstone, so that the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION of the United States will be legitimately represented in both Houses of Congress of the United States.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2009 at 3:53 am Link to this comment

diamond,

If the United States can broadcast into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union with Radio Free Europe, and the United States can broadcast into Cuba and South America with Radio Marti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Marti, the President of the United States can set up his own broadcasting system and broadcast DIRECTLY to the people of the United States, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, with a Radio Free America Program, so that democracy can be served for the masses, rather than pandering to the 30% American aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class that control both institutionalized political parties.  I do not accept your choices as being legitimate because the President of the United States can, if he chooses to do so, go DIRECTLY to the people, and President Barack Obama should go directly to the people.

Do you think if the President made a broadcast DIRECTLY to the American people of the United States and pleaded his case saying, I need your support for a specific reason, that certain divisions of government are a draw back to my program, that the American people in the name of democracy would not give him the support he needs in whatever numbers he requires? —- I think they would.

Bill Clinton was the BEST Republican President of the United States there has ever been, according to Alan Greenspan; since Bill Clinton signed into effect RIGHT-WING EXTREME legislation; if Bill Clinton signed into effect REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION because he was scared, like you say Clinton was, he should not have been in the presidency in the 1st place; and if you’re saying Obama is also afraid and uncomfortable with his safety, then Obama needs to surround himself with his own constituents, so that he will be safe and not act out of fear.  WE THE PEOPLE should be able to look at the president’s constituents surrounding him for his safety in order to determine whether or not he is representing the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, or the combined 30% minority Professional Middle Class toadies to the American Aristocracy and the American Aristocracy’s elite capitalists.

What happened with the Clinton’s was an Inner/Outer Party squabble of The Party, the nation’s institutionalized duopoly of the Democratic/Republican Party, which is far different than what happened to Martin Luther King or the Clintons.  King actually represented the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION and was killed by EXTREMIST, James Earl Ray.  The Kennedy’s had issues with organized crime, that helped John Kennedy get elected and may have been responsible for their deaths, because organized crime had expectations the Kennedy’s were ignoring, since Bobby Kennedy, as John Kennedy’s Attorney General, was coming down extremely hard against organized crime.  And, NONE of the situations you have mentioned have any bearing at all on a President representing a legitimate political base.

No, a MILLION TIMES NO, the politicians DO NOT have to do the bidding of far right idealogs, if the politicians will appeal to the MAJORITY POPULATION for DIRECT SUPPORT; minority power will dissolve when confronted directly with MAJORITY POWER of the MASSES, as the FINAL SAY will come from the people, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, when they stand up UNITED and demand their say, based on what their president has said.

(cont. in next post)

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 11, 2009 at 3:46 am Link to this comment

diamond,

If the United States can broadcast into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union with Radio Free Europe, and the United States can broadcast into Cuba and South America with Radio Marti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Marti, the President of the United States can set up his own broadcasting system and broadcast DIRECTLY to the people of the United States, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, with a Radio Free America Program, so that democracy can be served for the masses, rather than pandering to the 30% American aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class that control both institutionalized political parties.  I do not accept your choices as being legitimate because the President of the United States can, if he chooses to do so, go DIRECTLY to the people, and President Barack Obama should go directly to the people.

Do you think if the President made a broadcast DIRECTLY to the American people of the United States and pleaded his case saying, I need your support for a specific reason, that certain divisions of government are a draw back to my program, that the American people in the name of democracy would not give him the support he needs in whatever numbers he requires? —- I think they would.

Bill Clinton was the BEST Republican President of the United States there has ever been, according to Alan Greenspan; since Bill Clinton signed into effect RIGHT-WING EXTREME legislation; if Bill Clinton signed into effect REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION because he was scared, like you say Clinton was, he should not have been in the presidency in the 1st place; and if you’re saying Obama is also afraid and uncomfortable with his safety, then Obama needs to surround himself with his own constituents, so that he will be safe and not act out of fear.  WE THE PEOPLE should be able to look at the president’s constituents surrounding him for his safety in order to determine whether or not he is representing the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, or the combined 30% minority Professional Middle Class toadies to the American Aristocracy and the American Aristocracy’s elite capitalists.

What happened with the Clinton’s was an Inner/Outer Party squabble of The Party, the nation’s institutionalized duopoly of the Democratic/Republican Party, which is far different than what happened to Martin Luther King or the Kennedy’s.  King actually represented the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION and was killed by EXTREMIST, James Earl Ray.  The Kennedy’s had issues with organized crime, that helped John Kennedy get elected and may have been responsible for their deaths, because organized crime had expectations the Kennedy’s were ignoring, since Bobby Kennedy, as John Kennedy’s Attorney General, was coming down extremely hard against organized crime.  And, NONE of the situations you have mentioned have any bearing at all on a President representing a legitimate political base.

No, a MILLION TIMES NO, politicians DO NOT have to do the bidding of far right idealogs, if the politicians will appeal to the MAJORITY POPULATION for DIRECT SUPPORT; minority power will dissolve when confronted DIRECTLY with MAJORITY POWER of the MASSES, as the FINAL SAY will come from the people, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, when they are called to stand up UNITED and demand their say, based on what their president has said.

(cont. in next post)

Report this

By KDelphi, June 10, 2009 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

diamond—you are not making any sense.

When did I defend Bush? Who thinks that Bush sent the anthrax? (wouldnt matter if he did—Obama wouldnt convict him)Who gives a rat’s ass if Clinton got a blow job?? Not me on any of those counts. I dont hate Clinton for his blow job—I dont care if a presodent makes a tape of it for YouTube. I care when they needlessly kill people and rip off the poor.

Do you have sme evidence (besides FluffPO or soemthing) that proves the links on some of this stuff? Why do you believe that, if you hate Dems you must love GOP? Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?

diamond says, “It’s not a question of what Clinton did but under the present circumstances as we survey the smoking ruin of 8 years of Republican rule, what the Republicans didn’t do. They didn’t uphold the constitution, they didn’t obey the law,  they didn’t show leadership, they didn’t protect the citizens they took an oath to protect, they didn’t tell the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11 or the anthrax attacks, they didn’t behave responsibly and demonstrate good stewardship of the American economy. ..”

The Dems had a majority after 2006—what did they change? The Dems bowed and kissed Bush’s a**. That is when I really stopped trusting them completely. And, I never will again.

I wasnt talking about a Nader Third Party, although that would be nice, and what, do you think he would do what Obama is doing in Afhanistan? NO. On heatlh care? NO—he is for single payer. I could go on and on.

I want more than three parties—there is nothing contitutional that says we cant. (But, there is for tha Patriot Act and indefinite detention…tell Obama for me)But, just remain in your Democratic Party box. You cant be disappointed if you dont expect any better. Must be soothing…I know I felt better when I was under the illusion that Clinton “left a surplus”...but it wasnt real…

Report this

By diamond, June 10, 2009 at 9:47 pm Link to this comment

All over the place? Well that would be you, Kdelphi. I don’t know about you but I think attacking your own people with anthrax should make a President and Vice President criminals and I think they should be put on trial and locked up. Here’s the big news, getting a blow job is not against the law. Attacking your own people is, it’s called treason. Pass it on.

It’s not a question of what Clinton did but under the present circumstances as we survey the smoking ruin of 8 years of Republican rule, what the Republicans didn’t do. They didn’t uphold the constitution, they didn’t obey the law,  they didn’t show leadership, they didn’t protect the citizens they took an oath to protect, they didn’t tell the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11 or the anthrax attacks, they didn’t behave responsibly and demonstrate good stewardship of the American economy. Clinton left a trillion dollar surplus. Was that a good thing or a bad thing? Clinton didn’t invade Iraq even when pressured to do so by the neo con intellectual pygmies who inherited Reagan’s mantle of irresponsibility, debt creation and foreign war. Good things or bad things? Think about it.  Amusing also to see you philosophizing about third party ‘compromise’ - if Obama makes any conciliatory moves in his dealings with the Republicans people like nearly blow a gasket and call him a charlatan. The fact is, there is no third party. The cavalry is not going to arrive so deal with reality. That’s what Obama has to do and it’s what Ralph Nader would have to do too.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 10, 2009 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA

How can you say this—
“Wellstone was one of a kind…. He successfully formed a coalition of farmers, union members, laborers and activists…

“He was the only Democrat in a tight re-election race that voted against the Iraq war resolution. A decade ago, he challenged President Bush the senior’s Gulf War preparations on their first meeting, prompting Bush Sr. to ask, “who is this chicken-sht*#!?” Wellstone was one of the staunchest opponents of the Star Wars so-called “national missile defense” program and of increased military aid to Colombia..”

with which I agree, and, yet, support the present Democratic Party? The only reason I can think of, is to believe that we cant do any better.

The Dem Party treated Wellstone, for the most part, like a joke.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 10, 2009 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

diamond—do you work for the Dems? Cause you should..where did the “anthrax attacks” come in?
You should at least get paid for defending them so strongly.

Israel is a theocratic dictatorship. which, when I heard Obama speak I was beginning to believe the USD was!

Youre all over the place…and dont answer any questions…what was it that Clinton did that was so great? Did you forget and leave it out?

Report this

By haroldmh, June 10, 2009 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MarthaA

It is unrealistic to believe the 70% can or will “win” through the ballot.  Emma Goldman was probably right when she said, “No great idea in its beginning can ever be within the law.” 

I have pretty much given up on our Government’s functioning “for the people”. Additionally, I have pretty much given up on our ability, that is, “by the people” to change the functioning of Government to “favor the many rather than the few” until such time as “we the people” join together in civil insurrection.

That I would be more than willing to join but I am quite incapable of leading.

Whether or when that might happen, I have no clue but I have written the conclusions of my concerns should you or anyone else choose to read them; reference

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Two-Decades-of-Political-R-by-Harold-Hellickson-090506-125.html and

http://www.opednews.com/articles/America-s-Axis-of-Evil-by-Harold-Hellickson-090528-597.html

For what it’s worth, I am a registered Independent who finally quit voting for the “lesser of two evils” and voted my conscious for Ralph Nadar.

Report this

By ardee, June 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

diamond, June 9 at 7:18 pm #


Kdelphi the only reason you’re still fantasizing about third party candidates is that they’ve never been the government. They’ve never had to make hard decisions and they’ve never had to compromise because they’ve never been in power.
.......................

If I may butt in here, diamond. Your comment that no third party has been in our government is true enough, but it is far too fatalistic to be realistic. By this standard there is no hope of change, and that is unacceptable.

It is the art of the compromise that makes third party presence so very necessary in our legislature. Currently the progressive voice is lost, controlled by the pursestrings of the two party system. If you fail to toe the line you get no money to campaign, no choice committee assignments either and soon enbough you find yourself back in your district or losing your conscience.

With the need to gain the votes of third party elected pols one must perforce deal with the need to include progressive ideas and ideals or lose the battle for that bill. This is exactly what is missing, in my own opinion, from our government.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 10, 2009 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

haroldmh,

Your rhetoric using the Democrat Party as a slur; rather than the actual title, Democratic Party, lets me know you are REPUBLICAN.

Duh, of course the “moneyed elite” do not ignore Primary Elections; and neither should the “unmoneyed common population”.  The REPUBLICAN PARTY represents the “moneyed” autocrats and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY represents the “unmoneyed” democrats. Currently there can only be Democrats and Republicans because there is only 2 institutionalized political parties.

The process of revamping the Democratic Party can ONLY be done by registered members of the Democratic Party, registered members from the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, there is NO OTHER WAY, as ALL 3rd Parties are non-institutionalized, which means any 3rd Party does not have Constitutionally equal political rights, so 3rd Party voting will NEVER scare the Hell out of any duopoly member, it is what they want.
 
The only way to scare the Hell out of duopoly members is for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION to “UNITE” as ONE in the Democratic Party against ALL duopoly members in the Democratic Party, as NO DUOPOLY MEMBER represents any one person of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Non-institutionalized 3rd Party voting is a divisive technique promoted by the right/left conservative duopoly to DIVIDE the common population and castrate their POWER, because non-institutionalized 3rd Party voters are unable to compete with institutionalized political party standing equivalent to the Democratic Party and/or the Republican Party; therefore, YOU are presenting a FALSE CHOICE and a FALSE SOLUTION; this, also, tells me that YOU are a REPUBLICAN; otherwise, YOU would not be presenting a FALSE CHOICE as a legitimate solution, as REPUBLICANS always do.  If YOU are not a REPUBLICAN, as I’m certain you will contend, then YOU are either grossly unaware or have been grossly deceived by the duopoly’s propaganda.

Report this

By diamond, June 9, 2009 at 9:50 pm Link to this comment

Of course Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act, not so much after 9/11 as after the anthrax attacks which targeted Leahy and Daschle (Democrats, but of course that was just more theatre, wasn’t it?) who had expressed doubts about the Patriot Act. Anyone who valued their life voted for it after that. While everyone runs off at the mouth about Clinton and Obama you have an act in place, co-written by Michael Mukasey (neo con enabler) long before 9/11 happened and introduced after Cheney had spent weeks munching Cipro (he started taking it the evening of 9/11) and carried out with weaponized anthrax from a CIA weapons lab - an act which takes away most of your civil rights. Furthermore they still have Patriot Act II in the wings which was not passed into law but could be at some future date.

Even the small section I’ve read on ‘Privacy Invasions’ contained in Patriot Act II is deeply disturbing:
PRIVACY INVASIONS. USAPA II dramatically widens the powers of government to invade the privacy of Americans and others living here. This includes:
1.Broad new authority to compel information from ISPs, friends, relatives, businesses and others, all without informing you.
2.Immunity for businesses that voluntarily turn over your information to law enforcement.
3.Extra punishment for use of cryptography—no connection to terrorism needed.
4.Instant police access to your credit reports upon certification that they are sought “in connection with their duties”—again, with no connection to terrorism needed.
5.Relaxed requirement of specificity for warrants for multi-use devices like PDAs and computers with telephonic capabilities.
6.DNA collected from all ‘terrorism’ suspects/DNA database information open to all law enforcement.
7.Less judicial oversight of surveillance.

9/11 was carried out to allow these kinds of provisions to be passed into law. It was carried out to launch the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror and the increased kidnappings and torture that followed Patriot Act I being passed into law.

There is no way Clinton would have carried out 9/11 or the anthrax attacks or put an abomination like the Patriot Act up and forced it through by threatening the lives and well being of Senators. I find the obsession with him and his wife creepy and weird because the fact is, they didn’t do it. Any of it.  Kdelphi’s belief in the magic of a labour party is touching but Israel has a labour party and it hasn’t done anything to stem the activities of the fascists in its midst. What you should be asking is not ‘Why don’t we have a labour party?’ but ‘What kind of people send anthrax to senators through the mail and how can we put them in jail?’

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 9, 2009 at 8:37 pm Link to this comment

Rontruth,

Sen. Paul Wellstone, 1944-2002:

Less Than Two Weeks Before Election Day, the Populist Democrat From Minnesota Dies with Seven Others in a Plane Crash

He died alongside his high school sweetheart and wife of 39 years, Sheila, their daughter Marcia Markuson, three campaign aides and two pilots. Police say their plane crashed in freezing rain in northeastern Minnesota.

Wellstone’s death came less than two weeks before a highly contested election that could affect the balance of power in the Senate. News reports indicate that former Vice President Walter Mondale plans to announce Wednesday he will replace Wellstone on the ballot.

A statement on his website from co-workers reads, “Paul Wellstone was one of a kind. He was a man of principle and conviction, in a world that has too little of either. He was dedicated to helping the little guy, in a business dominated by the big guys. We who had the privilege of working with him hope that he will be remembered as he lived every day: as a champion for people.”

Wellstone was one of a kind. As a former college professor who had never held an elected office before, Wellstone’s made an unlikely Senator when he won the 1990 race. He successfully formed a coalition of farmers, union members, laborers and activists.

He was the only Democrat in a tight re-election race that voted against the Iraq war resolution. A decade ago, he challenged President Bush the senior’s Gulf War preparations on their first meeting, prompting Bush Sr. to ask, “who is this chicken-sht*#!?” Wellstone was one of the staunchest opponents of the Star Wars so-called “national missile defense” program and of increased military aid to Colombia.

But after Sept. 11, Wellstone voted for the USA Patriot Act. He also voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Wellstone liked to say he represented the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/28/sen_paul_wellstone_1944_2002_less

The memorial service for Wellstone came as state Democratic leaders prepared to name former Vice President Walter F. Mondale to replace him as the party’s nominee on Tuesday’s ballot.

Among those in attendance were former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore and about half of the Senate. Wellstone’s family asked Vice President Cheney not to attend the service. Wellstone’s close friend and fellow Senator Tom Harkin was the only politician to speak at the memorial.

http://www.democracynow.org/2002/10/30/sen_paul_wellstone_remembered_20_000

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0923-25.htm

I can’t find the documentary, but the name of it is Wellstone!

The police said there was a freezing rain, but I remember there was some doubt at the time about that freezing rain.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 9, 2009 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment

diamond—ok, how do you explain that every other civilized democracy (or socialist democracy) has more than Tweedledumb and tweedledumbass to vote for? You will get what you are willing to put up with.(or, people like you are willing to put up with and we all pay the price)

Let see, it is a long post without paragraphs, so let me split them up for you:

By diamond, June 9 at 7:18 pm #


“Kdelphi the only reason you’re still fantasizing about third party candidates is that they’ve never been the government…blahblahblah”
(see above and every other “free ” country in the world—we need a Labor Party—the Dems sure as hell aint! We need a Socialist Party—you guys are just too entrenched in your ways and comfortable to see it. Being such an admirer of JFK, surely you remember what he said about preventing peaceful revolution…. You’ll end up with another Nader electiom if youre not careful!)

“I would also like to remind you that Mr. Peaceman voted against the Iraq war “STOP!! Myth…
How could he do that when he wasnt in the Senate?? ONce in, he voted for every war funding bill he could. and the bailout.now he is increasing military spending.

“and did not create the mess he is now tasked with fixing -either the economic mess or the military one.” STOP
He is creating a new one in AfPak and he has given more money to Wall St than Bush did, and vice versa.
Its love at first greenback!
“If America clings to the past instead of looking to the future it can now only go two ways: it can become a dictatorship which ... Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld tried to turn it into a Presidential dictatorship and that failed”...
STOP—NO, they succeeded and Obama is continuing it. Speaking of drivel…
“All this drivel about Clinton is just really tiresome.“STOP—not “drivel” facts. Tell me what did Clinton do for the people?
“Clinton is not your enemy and as the Chinese say ‘Know your enemy, thousand times fight, thousand times win’.“STOP-
-I do that that is why I fight neo-libs every chance I get. Clinton IS the enemy and Obama is Clinton .
Give one example of “Clinton , man of the people”...this is always the lame argument, if the GOP hates him he must be good!!

“if he was on their side why would they bother?”(STOP So the enemy hates him so he must be ok—I think the uS has made that mistake many times.

“The Republicans and their military backers wouldn’t know a principle if it came up and bit them in the behind.” STOP-
-Neither would the Democrats. The Dems have their head so far up the military industrial complex’s as* they will never get out.

“What Obama understands and they don’t is that the first world has to come to terms with the third world:”(STOP—already have, see Obamas Peru Free Trade Agreement.) “come to terms”?? Why dont we just leave them alone??

“by helping it to develop in peaceful and constructive ways.” HOW CAN YOU BE SO ARROGANT?!(true neo-lib talk)—dont they have a say in it? NO—not if there’s money to be made)
“The US military industrial complex has to be reduced (drastically) but to reduce it tomorrow would cause mass unemployment.”
STOP—So we cant stop war because people would become unemployed-thats the breaks in the death industry, I guess! And the lamest excuse in history…
“Large numbers of angry ex-soldiers roaming around with guns? Are you in favour of that?”
NO I am in favor of bringing them home and giving them what we promse—which we never do. But, with Obama at least there will be fewer “roaming around” because they will be dead.But , you’ll never have to go, right? Nor Obama, so who cares? Killing brown peoel is good businesss practice!!

You are such a typical neo-oiberal…Chicago School all the way…

Report this

By diamond, June 9, 2009 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

Kdelphi the only reason you’re still fantasizing about third party candidates is that they’ve never been the government. They’ve never had to make hard decisions and they’ve never had to compromise because they’ve never been in power. I would also like to remind you that Mr. Peaceman voted against the Iraq war and did not create the mess he is now tasked with fixing -either the economic mess or the military one. It’s childish to expect him to get into power, click his ruby slippers, wave his magic wand and make it all just disappear. That only happens in movies. If America clings to the past instead of looking to the future it can now only go two ways: it can become a dictatorship which will make what happened in ‘1984’ look like a walk in the park or it can become a failed state like Zimbabwe. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld tried to turn it into a Presidential dictatorship and that failed (as it was always going to in any country that still retained any vestige of democracy and freedom of speech) so what looms now is being a failed state. All this drivel about Clinton is just really tiresome. Clinton is not your enemy and as the Chinese say ‘Know your enemy, thousand times fight, thousand times win’. If Clinton hadn’t been on the side of the people the far right elites would have left him alone. Instead they went all out to destroy him and his presidency. Use your common sense: if he was on their side why would they bother? I like a bit of theatre as much as the next person but what happened to Clinton was simply fascism in action and not theatre. As for principles: don’t make me laugh. The Republicans and their military backers wouldn’t know a principle if it came up and bit them in the behind. They’ve moved so far to the right that Hitler’s to the left of them and they are a danger to the entire world. What Obama understands and they don’t is that the first world has to come to terms with the third world: not by crushing it militarily and stealing its resources but by helping it to develop in peaceful and constructive ways. The US military industrial complex has to be reduced (drastically) but to reduce it tomorrow would cause mass unemployment. Large numbers of angry ex-soldiers roaming around with guns? Are you in favour of that?

Report this

By KDelphi, June 9, 2009 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

diamond—Your defense of DLC Dems is pointless. You merely ignore all the things that Dems have done, by saying “GOP is worse”. So? We can do better.

The “look on Clinton’s face’?? YOu guys need to do a reality check!! All Clinton or Obama has to do is smile or loook pained and you guys fall all over yourselves. We’re not supposed to be electing a “friend” here..

When you start supporting principles, not people, and demand better, we will get b etter.

Until then, we will get people like Obama , who just stood up today and supported Blue Dogs in Pay as you GO. Please tell me why in the world, when Dems have the House the Senate the prsidency, he “had to do that”?? HOw in hell is he going to pass any of the social programs he spopke of (so eloquently!) during the campaign if he does this?? (which, of course, doesnt apply to the military budget, which Mr Peaceman has actually increased!)

He doesnt. He just walks to walk the middle road and get re-elected.

Report this

By diamond, June 9, 2009 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA what I am trying to point out to you is that what happened to the Kennedys, to Martin Luther King and to the Clintons (among many others) was not only a tragedy for them. These things are done to let politicians and the people know that they don’t have the final say. Yes, politicians can go out and get the people behind them and even find their way to the top office in the land but then what? Then they have to do the bidding of the CIA and the Pentagon and a cabal of far right ideologues. Any refusal to do so would then have serious consequences because the mainstream media completely dominated the political discourse with lies, distortions and the same far right political agenda and they could be used to get rid of people like the Clinton’s. Or so they thought. Clinton’s re-election was actually something of a turning point and demonstrated the good sense of the American voter, and also their growing skepticism about the mainstream media. Since then the number of people who get their information from the internet has grown enormously to the point where newspapers are going bankrupt.

Throwing out a slew of Democrats will only put a smile on the faces of the Republicans - because who are you going to vote for if you don’t vote for the Democrat? A Republican? Or someone who can’t possibly get elected? Obama is trying to build consensus by getting support from some Republicans as well as Democrats and he’s right to do that. The situation is so serious he has no choice, because America now has to move forward on controlling the CIA and the Pentagon and things like health care, education, supporting families and workers’ rights - or become a failed state. The Soviet Union is not there any more to justify the bloated military and the disgraceful waste of taxpayers’ funds and The war on Terror is, as one Pentagon whistleblower put it, ‘a jobs program for the military’. For all these things to be repaired or changed the Republicans need to be kept out of power for at least twelve years and I don’t see how that can be done by constantly attacking the Democrats.

Report this

By haroldmh, June 9, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MarthaA

The “moneyed elite” do not ignore primary elections any more than they they do general elections.  Revamping the Democratic Party will not be done by Democrats.  It is remotely possible that someday the Democrat Party may accept the pursuit of peace, legal-social-and economic justice but only if the number of third party voters begin to scare the hell out of them.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 9, 2009 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

There’s TOO MANY REPUBLICANS in the Democratic Party—- DINO’S—- and people must understand that to remedy the situation the people of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION as a whole need to ALL register as Democrats and VOTE ALL THE REPUBLICAN DINO’S OUT of the Democratic Party in the PRIMARY ELECTIONS, if not all, as many as is possible to vote out, AND NEVER GIVE UP—so that WE THE PEOPLE can get someone in office in November 2010 that will represent the LEFT, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION; instead of both parties representing the RIGHT.

NO OTHER POLITICAL PARTY is equipped to remedy the situation, only the Democratic Party, the remedy will have to be done through the Democratic Party, the ONLY institutionalized political Left party of the two parties, and these right-wingers have to be VOTED OUT of it; there is no other way, THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE ON THEIR OWN, and they will never do anything beneficial for the Left, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

The PRIMARY ELECTION in my state will be July 27, 2010, which gives plenty of time for ALL PEOPLE LEANING DEMOCRATIC to get registered as Democrats and VOTE ALL POSSIBLE RIGHT-WINGER DINO’S out of the “ONE” LEFT POLITICAL PARTY, so WE THE PEOPLE can clean up the political system.  Forget any other party and forget the Republican Party, the Republican Party is AUTOCRATIC, NOT DEMOCRATIC. We as a people must zero in on the Democratic Party and vote out all incumbents possible, without fail.  There is no way to clean up the Republican Party unless the common population unifies to clean up the Democratic Party and when the Democratic Party gets cleaned up enough, the Republicans will be forced to be honorable, otherwise greed will continue to reign.  Once the Democratic Party has the DINO’s out of it we can get legislation passed for multi-political parties, so that this situation never happens again, but until then, we of the 70% MAJORITY common population are All going to have to be Democrats WITHOUT QUIBBLING until we can get the Democratic Party cleaned up.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 9, 2009 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Diamond,

Nobody wanted President Clinton to be for the people more than me, but he wasn’t and isn’t, it was all theatrics made as real as they could make theater for the public’s benefit; otherwise the trial wouldn’t have been on television; the Republicans came after Clinton harder than Clinton expected, which was humiliating, but he made it and Bush and Clinton are still cooperating friends, because it was a show trial to prove there is still a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, but there isn’t, because since the DLC-PPI took control of the Democratic Party the Right and the upper Left have been ONE, with only a few in the Democratic Party actually trying to represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

The Party doesn’t want to admit the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, because there is POWER in a UNIFIED common population; politicians will call the common population the working class, the middle class, the poor, the populous; but never the MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION that they really are, because if they did, they would have to represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION or make provisions for actual representation. The Party, the 30% American aristocracy’s Elite Capitalist Class and the Professional Middle Class, has chosen not to ACTUALLY represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

There is never a court hearing on conservative television that the public should hear while it’s going on, only what The Party wants you to hear.  I would have loved to hear the trial while it was happening that determined the guilt of the bomber of the Oklahoma City Federal Bldg, but it was closed, no trial relative to the attack on the United States has been made public and everything that is pertinent to the public as far as federal government is concerned will always be closed to the public, because the public is not being allowed the right to know, and the public has a right to know.

It will be interesting to see what The Party autocrats allow to be done about health care for all the 70% majority common population that The Party has chosen not to represent, since the people by the millions are demanding health care for all.  They may be forced to do something about health care or admit there is a common population that needs representation.  Common law is even being done away with as evidence there is no common population, but there is a common population class and culture which is 70% of the population of the United States.

Report this

By diamond, June 8, 2009 at 10:35 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA did you actually take a good look at Clinton’s face when those Republican morons were questioning him? You can’t fake anger like that. He was so angry I thought he was going to get up and punch someone in the face. If it was theatrics someone obviously forgot to tell him.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2009 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

Rontruth,

DemocracyNOW, http://www.democracynow.org and http://www.freespeech.tv are where I got my information.  It used to play all the time on those channels and I listened to it over and over.  I am certain you can get a copy if you contact them.  I believe the only evidence was that the pilot was highly experienced and there wasn’t a cloud in the sky.  You will have to listen to the documentary and make up your mind, I made up my mind that Paul Wellstone was taken out just like the right-wing takes out all who will seriously stand up for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 8, 2009 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

MarthaA: Interesting post. In my posts, I have included much documented evidence that, for example, there was a Bush hidden in the bushes behind the white picket fence on the infamous grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas when US President John F. Kennedy was publicly executed by the CIA’s top assassination squad, “Executive Action.” It contained several actual groups of assassins, such as Operation 40, from which both President Bush’s took several of their cabinet officers, including Porter Goss, Robert Bennet, and when Bush, Sr. was Reagan’s VP, Ted Shackley, and the list goes on. Their members admitted their’s and Bush, Sr. their CIA boss’s direct involvement in setting Lee Oswald up to take the blame for what they did to JFK.

You mentioned the death of Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash in, I believe, his home state of Minnesota. You say he was “killed because he stood up to the DLC, etc., and to Republicans. Can you let us know what evidence there might be that supports this hypothesis?

I’ve been to the site, TomFlocco.com, which is posted by a man who had met and talked with John F. Kennedy, Jr., and who said that Spec. Group 4, I think he called it, had discovered witnesses who told them that they had seen both George Bush’s near JFK’ Jr’s aircraft the day before John-John’s plane was seen by multiple witnesses to explode in mid-air, (we called him John-John when he was 3 years old on Monday, Nov. 25, 1963, hia birthday, when he became known to the world for that salute to his father’s caisson as it took President Kennedy’s casket to Arlington National Cemetary.

What can you tell us about Paul Wellstone’s death?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2009 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

KDelphi,

“Welfare reform, NAFTA, CAFTA, dayton peace accords, somalia, signing Glass Steagal, signing a Medicaid Recovery act that can recover peoples houses from them in exachange for medical care, Medicare privitization, in fact privitization of almost everything that Reagan hadnt already privitized.” —- KDelphi

That is a lot of taking away from the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION and all going to CORPORATE WELFARE, because we are all free and equal.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 8, 2009 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

Diamond,

Democrats are representative of the Left, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, not BIG CAPITALISTS; and, if they are afraid to represent their constituents, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, they should give up their seats, so that someone who isn’t afraid to represent their electorate can; or the electorate will have to vote them out in the Primary Elections.

Sen. Paul Wellstone was killed to avoid him being President, as he didn’t cooperate with the conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC Corporate New Democrats and Republicans.  Now the Republicans and the conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC Corporate New Democrats are keeping Senator Al Franken from filling Sen. Paul Wellstone’s old seat, that Norm Coleman took after Paul Wellstone’s death.  One should not run for democratic election if they are too afraid to die that they won’t represent their constituents and go about representing the other party’s constituents. 

Bill Clinton is the one who signed and promoted our jobs going overseas when he signed and still promotes NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that’s free to everyone except the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.  Also, Bill Clinton OK’d the movement of tanks on United States citizens in Waco, Texas based on nothing but hearsay, and usurped the County Sheriff, who would have handled the situation without killing them all.

I have found more virus type resistance on the internet from the conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC Corporate New Democrats on the DNC Blog than I have from anyone else on the net, because the conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC Corporate New Democrats are fighting not to represent the 70% majority common population, that I represent; Republicans know they don’t represent any of the 70% majority common population, never have, never will, but they won’t tell you that, because politics is leadership of constituents in their best interest and non-constituents against their best interest; and they won’t tell you that either.  Why?  Because it isn’t in their best interest for you to know the truth; and the same goes for the conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC Corporate New Democrats who represent themselves, NOT the 70% majority common population.

The Clinton impeachment televised trial was theatrics to keep the 70% majority common population from understanding that the two parties are cooperating as ONE.

The conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC Corporate New Democrats actually thought they could get elected without the 70% majority common population, but Governor Dean kept that from happening, so their lack of representation of the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION is more out of greed than fear. 

Representing the interests of the class and culture of which I belong, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, that isn’t represented at all, isn’t tearing anybody down, the conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC Corporate New Democrats tore themselves down when they chose not to represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.  The 20% conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC New Professional Class and Culture has established representation of themselves as toadies to the elite capitalists; instead of representation of the entire common population.

The only way to change anything politically is to vote out all conservative/moderate DLC-PPI PNAC corporate Democrats in the Primaries; and even though the DLC-PPI took control of the DFA where we are to get our democratic candidates, we still must just keep voting the DLC-PPI New Democrats out when they get in and concentrate strictly on cleaning up the Democratic Party; then when we have enough real representation to do so, we can legislate a multi-party political system that will institutionalize political representation for all three classes and cultures of the United States: the 10% American aristocracy, the 20% Professional Middle Class Singularity of Toadies to the American aristocracy and the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION.

Report this

By ardee, June 8, 2009 at 3:25 am Link to this comment

diamond, June 8 at 5:34 am #

“And when you’ve finished tearing the Democrats limb from limb what have you got? A bunch of fascists (the Republicans), a party that you claim doesn’t stand up for the working class (the Democrats) and some minor parties that are unelectable. Wouldn’t it make more sense to get out and be politically active and use your numbers to make the Democrats move back to where you think they should be?”
.........................

A question that makes me believe you have never tried following your own suggestion. There are many folks who are “graduates” of grassroots democratic organizations. The state and national organizations make a top down format in which suggestions coming from below are ignored and only requests for money and votes come from above.
............................

“The Democrats don’t feel support from the electorate to take the positions that you think they should, so they take a politically ‘safe’ position on most questions.”
.........................

Actually they take the positions that guarantee them a continuing flow of corporate monies into their war chests. Ever since Clinton reconstituted the DLC to close the gap in corporate monies flowing to both parties, which they very successfully accomplished by silencing the progressive voices within that party and moving the direction of the party to the right, the Democratic Party is not the party of your father.

Report this

By liecatcher, June 8, 2009 at 2:43 am Link to this comment

Hey Rontruth:
Your blog #244965 was outstanding. Thanks for taking the time.

I visited TomFlocco.com. Very interesting. No dates on when those articles were written.

I sent Tom an email to the address supplied & it was returned.

What do I need to know about that website?

Report this

By diamond, June 8, 2009 at 2:34 am Link to this comment

And when you’ve finished tearing the Democrats limb from limb what have you got? A bunch of fascists (the Republicans), a party that you claim doesn’t stand up for the working class (the Democrats) and some minor parties that are unelectable. Wouldn’t it make more sense to get out and be politically active and use your numbers to make the Democrats move back to where you think they should be? As Bargeant pointed out, almost 70% of Americans are working class. Really, it always fascinates me that so many people can be robbed blind and denied their human rights when the politicians are completely outnumbered. Of course, I realize that lobbyists have absolutely destroyed the idea that politicians represent the interests of those who elect them. The idea that the voters should ever have their interests represented is heresy (it used to be called Communism) in the present culture. 

The Democrats don’t feel support from the electorate to take the positions that you think they should, so they take a politically ‘safe’ position on most questions. I’m sure the assassination of both the Kennedys must have focused their minds wonderfully on their own mortality. It’s no mystery to me why they moved away from trying to change American society. I mean, the fact is the right has killed people for trying to change American society (they even killed university students in Ohio at Kent State and beat others to a pulp for protesting against the Vietnam war) and if they can’t kill those working for change they launch a campaign like the one against the Clintons. The torrent of hatred and threat that hit Hillary Clinton for simply trying to fix America’s broken health care system is an example of what I’m talking about. In ‘Sicko’ an American woman points out that in France the government is afraid of the people but in America the people are afraid of the government. Changing things can’t just be left to politicians- and it certainly can’t be left to the Republicans and the mainstream media - it’s too important for that. As Ted Swart put it, ‘The corporatists (who effectively run the government) are only interested in short term gain which inevitably causes long term and long lasting pain’. But of course the pain is on the workers not the drones.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 7, 2009 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

“In a 1986 conference on the legacy of “Great Society” of the Johnson administration, DLC chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives.  ” This speech signaled the end of the “New Politics” of the 1960s and 1970s in the Democratic Party and the rise of a new social conservatism in the party. Robb’s speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.”

“The collapse of the Soviet Union and the defeat of neoliberal technocrat Dukakis opened up new political room for the DLC and validated its claim that a conservative agenda was the only hope for reviving the Democratic Party. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who accepted From’s request to become DLC chairman in 1990, helped synthesize the various currents driving the Democratic Party to leave both “New Deal” nostalgia and “New Politics” of the 1960s progressives behind. Clinton successfully redefined the Democratic Party, molding it into an organization led by New Democrats, who seized hold of the political center by targeting swing votes of the middle class and advocating the politics of growth rather than redistribution and safety nets. Clinton leaned heavily on the polling of Yale University political scientist Stanley Greenberg and on the policy framework outlined by two analysts from the PPI in their 1989 paper “The Politics of Evasion.”

“In many ways, it was Bill Clinton-not the DLC-who succeeded in giving a human face and viable political program to the New Democrats. Although Clinton adopted most of the DLC platform as his own, he softened its hard ideological edge through compromise and inclusion, drawing in the party’s left-center and center-right. Ralph Nader and other critics of Clinton and the DLC contend that Clinton was a creature of the DLC. But Clinton proved larger than the DLC ideologues, and it was Clinton who made the DLC a major force in the Democratic Party rather than the other way around, as the DLC leadership implies when it takes credit for the Democratic presidential victories of the 1990s.”

“Writing shortly before the November 2000 presidential election, John Nichols observed that the DLC had been founded “with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition,” namely, “to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right.” According to Nichols, “The DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart” (Progressive, October 2000). Although the DLC can rightly claim to have yanked the Democratic Party to the right, it has repeatedly failed to sideline what PPI president Marshall has disparaging labeled “the party traditionalists.” Since its founding, the DLC has aimed to subsume all Democrats under its ideological umbrella. But persistent (and resurgent) resistance to neoliberal prescriptions, neoconservative foreign policy, and social conservative domestic policies has curtailed DLC ambitions and obliged it to operate more as a powerful agenda-setting and lobbying group within the party. In effect, the DLC has focused on controlling the party’s platform and leadership rather than on selling “big tent” politics to all Democratic Party constituencies.”  http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Democratic_Leadership_Council

President Clinton and Hillary Clinton ARE the DLC/PPI and PNAC.
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Report this

By KDelphi, June 7, 2009 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

diamond—Ive got the book, but apparently you dont keep up with his columns..he is quoted here all of the time.
“A redneck view of the Obamarama”

(This column originally appeared on the web site of the Australian Broadcasting Company. May 25, 2009)

It doesnt really sound like a guy promoting Democrats to me…it sounds like a guy who have decided Dems are slightly better than GOP..thats all.

By Joe Bageant

“...Meanwhile, Obama is humping the pump in an effort to re-inflate an economy that looks more every day like a balloon with a 55 caliber bullet hole in it. He’s even tried to get some of the escaped air back into the balloon by making corporations return a few billion dollars of the trillions in bailout money that disappeared the minute it crossed their paws. “Seems to me,” says Fat Larry, “he should’a give the money back to me. It was mine to start with.”


“Personally, I really cannot bitch too much about Obama’s giveaways. At the end of this month he’s sending me a $250 check—stimulus money being handed out to us retirees—which is about the only good thing I have encountered so far about getting old.


Indeed, it’s cause for celebration. So I’m gonna call ole Larry and we’re going out to get so damned stimulated we can’t walk home.
Postscript: Aw hell! The front page of today’s newspaper tells me the $250 stimulus payment is only a loan from the government, and that I will have to pay it back next April. In this new America, we are all issued debt, whether we ask for it or not (sigh).”

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/05/a-redneck-view-of-the-obamarama.html#more

Here are some more more recent posts: (Dec. 2008)
“There is quite a difference between hope and understanding the facts, then holding justified optimism. It will take quite a while for liberals wake up and meet the new boss—same as the old boss, yada yada. Hell, most of them have not figured out Bill Clinton yet. But when and if it does happen, I wanna be in California, the land of compulsory Oprah style optimism, and where so many childish souls nurse at the ever flowing tit of hope. It’s gonna be the biggest squalling diaper change in history.”

Where is the resounding endoresement of Dems over gOP??

Report this

By diamond, June 7, 2009 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

Rontruth I was not attacking Kennedy, who I admire. I was saying that to go on voting for the Republicans with their track record is only smart for Masochists. Unless you’re earning over a million dollars a year they are not your party. And yet millions of poor, working class Americans do vote for them, a mystery explored in a terrific (and very funny) book called ‘Deer Hunting with Jesus’. The way in which the Republicans have conned working class Americans into hating the Clintons and voting for people like Ronald Reagan and George Bush, not to mention Nixon is a masterpiece of propaganda and brainwashing, accomplished by the mainstream media, both print and television lying and deceiving Americans around the clock, so that they vote against their own interests. You only have to look at the things being written in the New York Times about the torture memos to see how it works. The hatred directed at the Democrats makes it all so easy for the Republicans. Not at the moment, of course, and maybe they won’t have it so easy ever again. I live in hope. Recent polls have found that only around 20% of people trust the newspapers and TV current affairs shows to tell the truth.The fact is, any party that has Nixon, Reagan and Bush as its presidential talent should have no credibility whatsoever.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 7, 2009 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

diamond—its called the dot com bubble. Clinton was an elitist, like the rest. So is Obama/

Welfare reform, NAFTA, CAFTA, dayton peace accords, somalia, signing Glass Steagal, signing a Medicaid Recovery act that can recover peoples houses from them in exachange for medical care, Medicare privitization, in fact privitization of almost everything that Reagan hadnt already privitized.

Both parties are not friends of the people. The Dems just “feel yoor pain” while they screw you, and apologize for civilian bombings.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 7, 2009 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

ordering all preparations for a second invasion of Cuba to be stopped, is what I should have said.
NSAM was the Memo signed by LBJ one week after JFK’s murder in Dallas. It had been prepared five days before His death, by the conspirators including LBJ, before he left for Honolulu, Hawaii, enroute back to the states and on to Dallas to appear with Kennedy on the last trip of Kennedy’s life.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 7, 2009 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

I would have to speak in defense of President Kennedy being favored by Masochists

His problem, along with that of Clinton, and Obama, the most recent appeaser of the violent reichwing, neo-nazi/fascist corporate elite (how’s that for a lengthy description?)junta-behind-the-scenes, was that he knew he lived under a threat to his life. I base this statement on the history of all Democratic presidents from Kennedy on down to today. Examples:
  1. Kennedy: Turns down a large war in Vietnam by ordering the withdrawal of all US forces from there, October 11, 1963 (NSAM 263).
  2. Makes secret deal with Russia to end the Cuban missile crisis, ordering all preparations by his CIA for a second invasion of Cuba (see James Files’ letters listed at http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com) LBJ and the other conspirators in JFK’s murder drafted NSAM 273, reversing JFK’s withdrawal order FIVE days before JFK’s assassination!
3. Brother Bobby’s investigation of LBJ turns up corruption, and MURDER in Texas.
4. With CIA and mafia shooters on the ground in Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy is shot to death from a picket fence on the grassy knoll, 11/22/63.
Oswald, an FBI informant infiltrated the assassin group as a gun salesman out of FBI man, Guy Bannister’s office in New Orleans, was assigned his job at Tex. School Book Depository to abort what those who sent him there (the CIA, with FBI knowledge)in fact did. Oswald was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He got the blame by those who set him up.

Kennedy had done what politicians, up to his time, had really never done before: He changed from moderate Cold Warrior, to full-blown peacemaker in his last year in office, and his life. Plus, while President Kennedy made back-door ovetures to Castro to stop the impasse between the US and Cuba, brother Bobby had a secret plan, code-named Operation Freedom, using an old CIA hit team, Operation 40 which was formed to have Castro killed before the Kennedys took office, to have Castro killed. They kept the CIA out of the loop on their inside plan.

When the CIA found out, they got with their old Bay of Pigs invasion buddies who continued their membership in Operation 40, all of them Nixon cronies, and set their plan to use mafia hitmen to shoot JFK. When Hoover found out, his field agent, Lee Harvey Oswald, S-2-179, was assigned the cover-job as gun salesman to the very groups who plotted to kill President Kennedy.
When Operation 40 members found out what Oswald was put up to do by the FBI: stop the plot, they used Oswald’s close position to them to set him up to take the blame.

Then, they tried in Miami, but the police and Secret Service foiled it there. Then, they moved the plot to Chicago, but Mayor Daley found out, and said “NO.’
Then, they discovered that the mayor of Dallas was the brother to one of the three top CIA officials JFK had fired after they lied to him about the Bay of Pigs invasion. The plot was cinched.

In 1994, Clinton refused to sign legislation that would have spent many $Billions on an expensive new fighter-bomber for both the US and British air forces, over the next six months, five Secret Service aircraft, all ones Clinton was supposed to travel on, but Secret Service found out and diverted the president to other aircraft, exploded in mid flight. It got into the news media for a short time.

See TomFlocco.com for information about where witnesses had George W. and Goerge H. W. Bush a day before John F. Kennedy, Jr’s plane exploded in mid-flight, causing him to be removed after he told friends he was seriously thinking of runnning for President in the upcoming 2000 elections. All the investigative information is there.

Now, we know how we got the lies about how the WTC towers came down, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the financial messes were are in now. There ARE two very different parties. The Dems’ problem is they try to hard to placate and, frankly lie about what the other party’s leaders have done!

Report this

By diamond, June 7, 2009 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

“In the event of a Democratic electoral victory, the war would not merely continue; it would escalate.  “.... Iraq isn’t the last war we’ll have to fight, and we need a bigger army.” “This echoes a recent bill introduced by Senate Democrats, including Clinton and former vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, for an additional 80,000 troops.” 

You lost me at Joe Lieberman. Why do you put forward as a typical Democrat a man who got thrown out of the party? A man they call the senator from Tel Aviv? You mention him more than once as justification for whatever it is you’re trying to say. All of these think tanks and groups can say whatever they want. It’s called free speech. But if you’re trying to tell me that either Clinton would have DONE what Bush and Cheney have done then I reject that and I base it not on a bunch of people getting together to throw ideas around, I base it on what actually happened. Eight years of Clinton gave you relative peace and a huge surplus: Bush and Cheney gave you 9/11, two futile wars and a destroyed global economy. Bush cut taxes for those in the highest economic levels of America at the same time as he got America involved in hugely expensive and unneccessary wars. Ronald Reagan did the same, on a lesser scale, but he still damaged the economy, which wasn’t put back in good shape until Clinton steadied the economic ship. Now the Republicans have destroyed it again.To blame the Clintons for America’s poisonous and self-destructive military state is laughable. These are the very people (Pentagon and CIA) who set out to destroy the Clintons and conducted a long campaign against them which culminated in the manufactured outrage of Lewinsky and impeachment. To the extreme right, the Clintons were the anti-Vietnam war hippies who ended up in the White House.

Look at the facts: the seventies -Nixon- escalated war in Vietnam, Watergate, surveillance state, state crimes and disgrace. The eighties - Reagan - escalated laissez faire economics, cut taxes for the rich, constant and covert military involvement and interference in other people’s countries with disastrous effects for those countries, Oliver North etc. 21st century - Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld - 9/11, anthrax attacks, cut taxes for the rich, start two futile wars, further escalate laissez faire economics leading to the collapse of the global economy. It all reminds me of the woman who had ten children because she couldn’t work out what was causing the pregnancies. On the other side of the ledger you’ve got Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton and Obama. Hard to decide who to vote for- especially if you’re a masochist.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 7, 2009 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

“Workforce Capital” Must Be Demanded in the Economy of the United States for the 70% Majority Common Population as a Class and Culture.

The United States has a CAPITALIST Economy, of which:

The American Aristocracy has “Moneyed Capital”,

The Professional Middle Class Singularity of Toadies have “Cultural Capital”, and

The 70% Majority Common Population as a class and culture have no capital remuneration from the capitalist system, and MUST DEMAND to have “Workforce Capital” in the economy of the United States.

In a capitalist system, if we are going to continue having a capitalist system in the United States, all classes and cultures must share in the benefit of capital.  Otherwise, capitalism in the United States is nothing more than a scheme of idealism by the American Aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class to perpetuate advantage for their combined 30% minority at the expense of the 70% majority common population as a class and culture, who receive only wages while both the American Aristocracy and the Professional Middle Class receive capital.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 7, 2009 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

Diamond,

What about the DLC-PPI, the corporate lobbiest led Democratic Leadership Council and Progressive Policy Institute, that Bill and Hillary Clinton favor strongly?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/unmasking-the-dlc_b_39287.html 

“Al From, the DLC’s founder and CEO, and Bruce Reed, its president, voiced full support for the Bush administration’s escalation of militarism under the pretext of a “war on terror.”—-  “In the event of a Democratic electoral victory, the war would not merely continue; it would escalate.  “.... Iraq isn’t the last war we’ll have to fight, and we need a bigger army.” “This echoes a recent bill introduced by Senate Democrats, including Clinton and former vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, for an additional 80,000 troops.”  “From and Reed sought to underscore the fact that on questions of foreign policy, they have no differences with the Republican Party.”  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/dlc-j28.shtml

“The DLC publishes the magazine Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century and an online newsletter called New Dem Dispatch. Closely associated and sharing offices with the DLC is the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a think tank sponsored by the Third Way Foundation that proposes policy agendas for the so-called third way movement of what the DLC designates the “New Democrats.”  http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Democratic_Leadership_Council

“... neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), whose president, Will Marshall, .....”  “Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).”  “Using language that closely mirrored that of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in “Progressive Internationalism” PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI security strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again”  “Like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments.”  http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Progressive_Policy_Institute

Both Republicans and DLC-PPI Democrats follow the PNAC Plan, The Project for the New American Century.  http://www.newamericancentury.org/

“Under the leadership of Sen. Clinton, DLC Vice Chair Sen. Tom Carper, and Gov. Vilsack, a broad and unprecedented coalition of progressive think tanks took part in developing this agenda: the Democratic Leadership Council, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Center for American Progress, NDN, and Third Way. In addition, this coalition solicited input from other groups focused on the future of the American Dream, including Hope Street Group, a nonpartisan public policy network of private-sector professionals.”  http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=253994
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=253475

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2006/07/american_dream_initiative.php

The corporate funded and corporate led DLC are Republican-Lite Democrats that say one thing and do another, that cooperated to the fullest with the Ponzi Schemes of the Republicans and the destruction of the economy.  DLC Democrats should not be allowed to remain in the Congress of the United States, as 70% of the population, the majority common population, the “work force capital” of the United States and their families, were just left out of all discussions as inconsequential, since 70% of the population fall below the new professional middle class.

Report this

By tp, June 7, 2009 at 8:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Diamond
I agree with most of what you say. My democratic friends say be patient. But the democrats seem to prop up the GOP even with all the power of the house and the senate as well as the executive.
I’m not a Clinton lover. He pushed NAFTA through about two months into his first term. In is terms of office deregulating started causing our economical crises. The worse is yet to come as same the people who deregulated during Clinton’s watch is in control now. These Bankster shysters will walk away with everything of value in this country and the world. Obama has given them the keys to what ever national treasure we have left and our defense system while he makes speeches world wide. You say we must be patient because of the political atmosphere?? What do we do as we loose what little ability we have left to produce? GM will probably move overseas. If we keep buying on credit and just keep trillion dollar books what kind of future is left for the average American? It will be great for the Bank robbers in charge but not us.
I’d like to see change but there isn’t any change. Change is just a political slogan to get elected. Real change would be to take the puppet strings off and Nationalize the Banks that are too big to fail, round up and hold their Banksters liable for their part in the destruction of our economy and of our labor forces, take the power to simply print money away from the Feds(a private group of self serving banks) instead of letting them give million dollar bonuses to each of the money sucking executives, have a real transparency about everything that has gone on in this country from the beginning (a real educational experience for everybody), have an open discussion the health care system and let Americans choose our system rather than letting the insurance companies and etc, etc… Real change means something different to each of us. This is my American dream and that is all it is - a dream. 
We need to change the rule - “The Golden Rule” which means “Who so ever has the gold makes the rules”. The people should rule!
The bottom line is, as you stated, in the hands of a few elite string pullers. Mysteriously when Obama was a senator he was a proponent of single payer health care. Not now. He ran for office with all kinds of change speeches but there is no change.
What do you suggest? I am all ears. For years I had no interest in voting because even if the machines weren’t fixed minds were - by the propaganda garbage that flows freely through the news media.  Reporters are supposed to be our early warning soldiers. But they are owned by the likes of Rupford Murdoch and the right wing Bastard evangelized news stations where the truth is bent to an extreme self serving agenda.
Revolution? My army of one is found wanting. How soon would it take before we were renditioned to a secret holding facility if we joined forces? By now they know every move we make as the judiciary system just excused the communication systems for spying on us during the last 8 years. So, our new revolutionary army of two might be considered large enough to be a group of terrorist known via the Obama approved spy network. They could hype some charge that we are about to blow up the Sears tower or some shit like that to make an example out of us for future political purposes. An Orwellian reality has set in permanently.
Being patient is all we have left with a commit bitch section, like here at td. Our constitutional rights are just historical fiction now as George Bush scraped our rights. The ground work was laid for him through Bill Clinton, the Bush SR, Reagan, Cartar, Ford, Nixon and most of the others in the last century since 1913 when the Banksters started pulling the strings. Check out Ellen Browns “Web of Debt” http://www.webofdebt.com/
  tp

Report this

By diamond, June 7, 2009 at 1:33 am Link to this comment

Where were you truedigger 3 for the eight years of Clinton’s presidency? You must have been living in a cave and, gee, I hope it wasn’t the one Osama bin Laden’s living in. Why did they want to destroy him? He wasn’t a puppet,or a stooge like Bush that’s why.

The neo cons unsuccessfully lobbied Bill Clinton in 1998 to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein. In something called ‘The January Letter from PNAC’ it was suggested that America should go to war with Iraq even without the support of the United Nations. Clinton refused and said he was concentrating on al Qaida terrorist cells instead. George Bush’s contribution to fighting terrorism was to go on holiday and then to sit in a schoolroom reading a children’s book while the Twin Towers burned and exploded on to the streets of Manhattan. Do you detect a difference here? George was taken away like a child while Cheney ran everything on 9/11. They could never have done that with Clinton - or with Gore.

The Lewinsky caper was set up wholly and solely to prevent Clinton’s re-election. And Hillary Clinton was actually burned in effigy as a witch by some inbred no-necks who regarded reasonably priced, taxpayer funded health care as the work of the devil. They still do.  Sound as if she was a tool of the elites?

Then, in 2000, PNAC issued a white paper, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century’. This document made no bones about why now was the time to move forward with its imperialist military agenda. The Soviet Union was no longer a superpower and America could ensure its ‘interests and ideals’ by being prepared to ‘fight and decisively win MULTIPLE, SIMULTANEOUS MAJOR-THEATRE WARS’. Which in case you haven’t noticed is exactly what they did once Clinton and Gore were safely out of the way. To cut a long story short: the fall of the Soviet Union brought on a rush of blood to the head so that hubris and lack of scruple combined to make the neo cons and the CIA believe their wild fantasies could become reality, with no negative consequences. And there was nothing they would not do to ensure that they did. They desperately didn’t want Clinton to be re-elected because it meant putting all their plans for invading Afghanistan and Iraq (and all those other multiple, simultaneous, major theatre wars) on the back burner. Which is precisely what they had to do because Clinton still got re-elected in spite of their efforts. It obvious that you were one of those who sleepwalked through the 90s and swallowed every bit of rightwing propaganda they fed you. Did you hear the one about Bill Clinton flying drugs around in small planes? I’ll bet you believed that too. Everyone knows who was really flying drugs around in small planes : CIA stands for crooked, illicit and abnormal. For them and the Pentagon multiple wars are like multiple orgasms and they simply can’t get enough of them.

Report this

By Marcel Kincaid, June 6, 2009 at 11:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This article is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Nowhere does Scheer show any error in Krugman’s analysis—he merely points to more proximate causes *that Krugman himself has repeatedly addressed*. The whole rant is aimed a strawman, and seems to serve no other purpose than to protect Reagan’s phony image.

Report this

By tp, June 6, 2009 at 7:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marshall:
By Marshall, June 5 at 9:50 pm #
  You’re welcome for John Conyers FAQ on his HR 676 single payer health care bill. I hope that site cleared up some of your confusion about the single payer healthcare. The majority of our population, by more than 60%, is trying to get it kindled. As of now it is off the table because of the powers that be. If you would like to keep up to date or join the doctors, nurses taking the most action to date and of course any one who would like to see profit oriented insurance companies who costs the industry an extra 40%, which would be those fortunate enough to have insurance - the website is http://www.singlepayeraction.org/.
  The site I promoted earlier was for Ellen Brown’s Book, “The Web of Debt”. I would like to get your reaction to it as well. She has several articles in Global Research. I left this one in one of my commits: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13239. I believe she has the information we need to bring back our ability to produce in this country by taking the power to create money away from private banks and giving it back to the state and federal governments just as Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin sat the example with greenbacks. 
  About becoming real truth digger, you have a long way to go. Facts supporting your motivation for making money is understandable as I like making money as well but not at the expense of our health, constitutional rights or any unsuspecting victims which the free trade agreements seem to promote as complice to the IMF and the US loan shark investors who steel foreign resources for pennies on a dollar. Facts for investment information is one thing but the behavior of the deregulated bankers and lobbyist of our leadership unfairly using the power of our country to pilfer others is quite another.
  The media controlled propaganda keeps most of us in the dark. But we have each other in commit sections such as truthdig. We may not be accurate but we can inform each other about where to find info. The Bear Doc is has been a great source of info. Most of us have a job and don’t have the time so we don’t have the luxury of extensive research. We know that Westinghouse and General Electric aren’t going to be forth coming on their national broadcasts (NBC and CBS). You seem to think it is a complement to be considered among these individuals who cleverly cheat their way to the top. But, it is obvious that you are looking for a better way since you are visiting this site. You will find a lot of the truth here in these commits. Sometimes I think the articles are written specifically for thought provoking commits. 
  I hope you find your bleeding heart. It will guide to the truth and help you make a small change. The world needs us to change our ways.
tp
PS: Bill Moyers has a good one this week on more scum sucking pigs sucking money from Bushits - now Obamashits war machine: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06052009/transcript4.html

Report this

By Marshall, June 5, 2009 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

By ardee, June 5 at 5:44 am #

Ardee - I agree with the main premise of that commentary; that Bush’s single worst mistake was the invasion of Iraq and the failure to prosecute it effectively, which had ripple effects in many other parts of his presidency (and beyond).  I haven’t actually been a newsmax reader but will likely start now.

I haven’t been trying to defend Bush’s overall Presidency so much as correct some of the specific misstatements made here.  Even newsmax, which you seem to respect highly, chooses to frame the budgets and their increases in raw dollars rather than as percentages of GDP which is just plain misleading.  A budget number is meaningless out of context.

The article is clear that 9/11, homeland security, Iraq and Afghanistan were the largest budget items under Bush and while i blame Bush for Iraq, i certainly don’t for the others.

But unlike you, i don’t walk away from those I disagree with - instead choosing debate over retreat (unless it becomes ad hominem).  I’m not exactly sure which parts of my posts you consider “inventions and outright untruths” since you never address specific examples, but have it your way.

btw - i’ve never posted on commondreams so i don’t know what you’re referring to there.


By tp, June 5 at 9:46 am #

tp - thanks for the single-payer link.  i’ll take a look and post if i have anything to add.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

And Clinton kept his mouth shut and is still around and all over it. So he survived and went on to make millions as did that War Criminal Bush. Though so far all the presidents at least since, and including, Johnson have been war criminals. [One can find many others but I am just sticking with the post World War II.]

The Dominionists as they are called now tried to take over in 1934, calling themselves “The Fraternity” of leading industrialists and among the richest, but failed because of patriot Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler who ratted them out. Unfortunately FDR did nothing to them at all and covered it up. They learned and then started again with their boy Reagan and we have been going down hill ever since. We are still not far away from a Great Economic Crash which is what the Dominionists want and may still get.

Report this

By truedigger3, June 5, 2009 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

You still repeat the same nonsense but with different
wordings and with some back paddling.
Nobody served the elite and followed their agenda more than Bill Clinton. Why did the elite want to destroy him??!! Is that make sense.
Some group with mischief in their minds might contact a low level person who is digruntled or ideologue in the CIA or FBI or even the special forces to use their expertise, but that is different animal of what you are harping about that the CIA did this and the FBI did that.
OK, layoff that nonsense of yours.

Report this

By diamond, June 5, 2009 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

Doomed you say, truedigger? Did I ever say the CIA wasn’t a fully integrated part of the fascist elite that runs America? There’s no contradiction in saying that and saying that the CIA are in bed with organized crime. The corporate world IS organized crime. What you’re overlooking is that Democrat presidents are only ever in office on sufferance by the elites, including the CIA, the Pentagon, the mainstream media, the corporations, the Republican party etc. With the possible exception of Lyndon Johnson because he was on board with their agenda in Vietnam. You’ve only got to look at the lunacy that went on when Bill Clinton got elected. The media was on a mission to destroy him, in the service of the elites. He still got re-elected and, I believe, was lucky to survive re-election. They managed to assassinate his reputation, though. I’ve heard all that blather about how the Clintons are in on it. Well, if they’re in on it the Republican party should receive a collective Oscar. The fact is, the CIA and the Republican party both consider democracy to be a threat and an impediment to their plans, not the norm.

It’s widely accepted all over the world that the CIA got rid of both the Kennedys and that elements of the FBI were involved in getting rid of Martin Luther King. It should come as no surprise that articles are written claiming that Jimmy Carter is to blame for America’s economic downfall: the elites don’t want anyone to connect this disaster with Reagan or with Reaganomics or with the delusion that the only commandment that should exist is, thou shalt make a profit.The mainstream media is a perfect reflection of the rotten underworld these people inhabit. Now at night they think they hear the tumbrils in the distance and want to shore up their position by lying (if you’ll pardon the expression) their heads off.

Report this

By haroldmh, June 5, 2009 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

truedigger3

Bravo!  The CIA is certainly included in the Kissenger quote below:

Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. government should espouse a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound, discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition… - Kissinger on the Couch, Phyllis Schlafly and former CFR member Chester Ward

Report this

By truedigger3, June 5, 2009 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

diamond,

Enough of your nonsense about the CIA being a seperate independent entity with its own policy and agenda.
The CIA is part of the ruling estabishment and follow its scripted policies after these policies have been set after the usual round of discussions and consultations among all parties.
There might be, here and there, very low level CIA personnel who disagree on certain policies or tactics or certain operations but they are too few and isolated to affect any change and if they would try, they are doomed.

Report this

By samosamo, June 5, 2009 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

By ardee, June 5 at 5:44 am
““Below is my absolutely last response on this subject…”“
**********************************************

Don’t worry about the door hitting you in the ass, I will be right behind you, enough is enough already.

Report this

By Ted Swart, June 5, 2009 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

For Marshall:

For someone who claims to be an ignoramus when it comes to healthcare your run down of different competing medical systems is truly excellent.(Some call you and idaalogue—though why they do that I cannot understand).
At any rate your description of Canada’s situation is pretty well bang on.  Our system (like the US system) is, in many ways, in a shambles. But there are two things that make it very difficult to fix.  whilst we do not have a strictly two party system the competition between Conservatives and Liberals (not merely called such but actually labeled as such) is much the same. The medical system is used as a football to belabour the other party’s commitment (or lack thereof) to the mythical single payer system.
Thus it is that we fail to do the one thing which could and should bring the staggeringly high medical costs down—namely to place far more emphasis on prevention rather than cure.

Report this

By tp, June 5, 2009 at 6:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Marshall, June 5 at 3:58 am #
You can find more details to single payer health care at this site.
have a good day.


http://www.johnconyers.com/hr676faq

Report this

By ardee, June 5, 2009 at 2:44 am Link to this comment

Marshall June 5 at 3:12 am #

Enough is enough. Distortion and lies are such regardless of the erudition they are couched within. The longer this debate continues the more outrageous are your inventions and outright untruths. Below is my absolutely last response on this subject to perhaps the most disingenuous poster on this website, as you were on Common Dreams.

The link is to Newsmax, known to all as a far right site thus deflating your sophomoric attempts to brand all facts in opposition to you as from the left.


http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bush_legacy_part_two/2009/01/20/173445.html

The Bush Legacy Part II: Trillions in Deficits For Years to Come

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:46 PM

 
Newsmax.com Editorial

As Barack Obama assumes the mantle of the presidency and duties of the office, he has inherited from his predecessor a federal government that has a staggering national debt of more than $10 trillion, a ballooning federal deficit this year estimated at $438 billion – and a government that recently assumed responsibility for some $5 trillion of the nation’s consumer debt.

The irony is that George W. Bush, who billed himself as a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, leaves a legacy of profligate federal spending, record debt and an economy in shambles.

A broad range of conservative thinkers, surveying the political and economic fallout of the two Bush terms, are openly voicing their concerns that it may take years for the Republican Party and the nation to repair the damage Bush policies have inflicted.

“Bush has added a staggering $32 trillion to unfunded government liabilities future generations of Americans will have to bear,” wrote the London Sunday Times’ Andrew Sullivan, a maverick conservative who described Bush’s economic policies as “fiscal madness.”

.......

Sorry Marshall but you are an ideologue of the first water and talking to you is futile.

Report this

By diamond, June 5, 2009 at 1:31 am Link to this comment

Folktruther, Zbig is brilliant but shifty, like most people who inhabit the shadowy world he moved/moves in. The Russians went into Afghanistan in 1979 to prevent the Communist Afghan government they supported from collapsing. If Russia hadn’t gone in the CIA would, of course, still have gone on destabilizing the Afghan government and arming and funding the ‘freedom fighters’/ Muhajeddin. But with the Russians in what Zbig claims was a ‘trap’ they stepped up their involvement. To the tune of $20 billion under Ronald Reagan. The Red Army lost 600 aircraft in the 1980’s due to the U.S. rocket launchers supplied to the Muhajeddin. Ironically the war bankrupted the Soviet Union and brought it down but these days the Russians see the United States running around in Afghanistan in a similar mess to the one they were in. Carter may have gone along with the original covert involvement but when the financial involvement was increased and the Russians had gone into Afghanistan it was a bridge too far for him, probably because he feared another Vietnam or possibly World War III. He refused to authorize the extraordinary amounts the CIA wanted. The CIA then decided he had to go. During this war four million Afghans fled, mainly into Pakistan. The refugee camps where they lived became a breeding ground for radicals because the west turned its back on Afghanistan once Russia was defeated. The CIA has lied to and manipulated many presidents, Carter was not exceptional in this regard.

I don’t know why you think the length of time the Mullahs had been in power in Iran is relevant, or the fact that they were ‘revolutionaries’. One thing the CIA knows for certain is that money has no nationality, no politics and no religion. Not only were the Mullahs bribable, they were bribed, and they kept their part of the bargain, only releasing the hostages when Reagan had been elected.

Report this

By truedigger3, June 5, 2009 at 1:24 am Link to this comment

Marshall wrote:
“Now I’m not a blind Bush cheerleader - I agreed with some of his policies and disagreed with others.”
_____________________________________________________

Marshall,

You might not be a blind Bush cheeleader, but you are a far right conservative ideologue.
Any way, we both fell in the trap set up by big Money/Business through their propganda organ e.g.
the MSM.
We should be discusssing now how the trillions stolen by the banks and Wall St. from the fruit of the sweat and tears of the common folks be retrieved back and how to prevent that from happening again.
We should be discussing universal health care, the
decline and errosion of the middle class etc etc.
Or may be discussing all these subjects is against your convictions and you prefer to let the “free market” which is in acuality is not free at all and is controlled and rigged by the super-rich, decide these matters.??!!

Report this

By Marshall, June 5, 2009 at 12:58 am Link to this comment

By Hawkeye, June 4 at 1:31 am #

Hawkeye and tp - as much as I appreciate the complement, healthcare is too complicated for me and frankly i’m still undecided on the issue.  I’ve heard compelling arguments for various approaches to healthcare reform but am really left thinking that it’s largely an unknown except for the existing examples we can look to for guidance.

Personally, I don’t support single-payer for a few reasons:

1) It’s definition isn’t clear.  If it means “all healthcare paid for by govt. only”, then we have zero examples to look at.  France, Taiwan, Britain, Canada, etc… are not truly single payer.  In france, for example, employers, govt., and individuals all pay into the system, and most people buy additional private coverage for things not covered by the govt. plans (same in Canada, Taiwan).

2) Systems that approach “single-payer” have their own problems.  Take Canada for example, where treatment availability and waiting times vary dramatically across the country.  Canadian healthcare, once cited by Clinton as a sterling example, has been looking at increasing privatization in order to combat these problems.

3) Our system is broken, but there are numerous other factors that i think would need to be fixed before ANY system we choose could work.  Our main problem is too many people without coverage, but many who can afford coverage don’t get it, instead choosing to use the ER as their doctor.  And the high number of illegals in the US, many of whom use mandatorily supplied public healthcare, are a huge drain.  So’s the rising cost of healthcare, which is negatively affecting EVERY country’s system - but part of why it’s rising is that the technology is improving and that’s good.

I have nothing against the private health insurance model, though tying it to employment seems wrong and recessionary times like these are a good example of why.  If universal healthcare is even doable (and it may not be), i suspect the issue of “single” vs. “multiple” payers isn’t all that important.

Report this

By Marshall, June 5, 2009 at 12:12 am Link to this comment

By ardee, June 4 at 5:58 am #

Ardee - it doesn’t matter how the zfacts guy portrays himself; his website speaks for itself.  I suppose I’m not surprised that you don’t see zfacts bias given the websites you apparently frequent (commondreams, truthdig, moveon, etc…).  The information zfacts presents along with the information it omits doesn’t pretend objectivity, even if it’s owner does.

I agree with you about Clinton’s “average” leadership, but his balancing of the budget (under a republican congress that trimmed them) was the result of two main things:  1) Continued military spending cuts begun under Bush Sr. as a result of the end of the cold war, and 2) increased federal tax revenue resulting from the dot-com boom.  Lower spending + increased revenue = balanced budget.  Now unless you believe Clinton invented the internet, it’s difficult to give him much credit for the dot-economy, whose bubble burst at the end of his tenure while his budget/tax code were still in effect.  So: If you credit Clinton with the 90’s economic boom, then you must also credit him with its ensuing demise.

If you’d like to dispute my statements here, i’m listening.  In the meantime, here are the things you got wrong:

1) Your claim that “unemployment rose steadily” under Bush 43.  In fact, after the 2001 recession ended, unemployment declined (and GDP rose) steadily from 2003-2007 when the subprime mortgage crisis began to break.

2) Your claim that “budget deficits soared to incredible heights” under Bush.  In fact, despite a recession, 9/11, and two wars, deficits under Bush were well within historical norms, the highest being 3.6% of GDP in 2006 (highest under Clinton was about 4.5% of GDP, though early in his first term).

3) I agree with you about Iraq being a bad idea though as i keep stating, and you keep ignoring, numerous bipartisan commissions found no “lying”.

Now I’m not a blind Bush cheerleader - I agreed with some of his policies and disagreed with others.  I only ask that if you make claims, you be able to support them.  If not, then expect that i’ll do my best to correct them.  A good reference is that link from my last post to the OBM document which begins with a nice historical summary of economic conditions and budgets.

Report this
ThomasG's avatar

By ThomasG, June 4, 2009 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

Reagan is the one that started the bubble with the taxation level for supply-side economics based on Arthur Laffer’s Bell Curve Theory that the economy could expand forever if it stayed as low as possible—under 50%—DLC Democrats and Republicans alike considered Laffer’s Bell Curve Theory Holy Writ from God.  Reagan used credit from Asia or whoever would loan him money to expand the economy, using Arthur Laffer’s Theory to lower taxes, which started the process of destroying the safety net for the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION and switched our nation from a manufacturing economy to a mercantile economy for the short-term benefit derived by capitalists from this economic strategy at the expense of destruction of the U.S. Economy.  This is really the start, so nobody can of a truth say Reagan didn’t start the collapse of the U.S. Economy—Paul Krugman is correct.

DLC Democrats under Reagan and Clinton enabled Reagan and the CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT to execute supply side economic theory that originated the collapse of the U.S. Economy that we are experiencing today.

Report this

By Ted Swart, June 4, 2009 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Diamond for the highly cynical insights on Carter, Reagan, Clinton et al. I try to learn what I can from those contributors to Truthdig who seem intelligent and appear to have done their homework.
Nothing anyone has yet said disabuses me of the view that there is not too much to be gained in attempting to apportion the blame for the current sorry state of affairs. Picking on any one president as the single worst (or initial) villain seems particularly misguided.
Someone suggested that, when it comes to deregulation, the whole process really started with Carter.  And I am pretty well convinced that Carter, Reagan, Bush one, Clinton, Bush two and now Obama have all participated in creating or maintaining the mess.
It seems to be the case that unless Obama turns out to be more than just a good orator the stranglehold of corporatism still has a way to go.

Report this

By samosamo, June 4, 2009 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

By MarthaA, June 4 at 7:08 pm

You will not be able to convince me different especially since the 2006 election that put the dems in the majority(but still unable to overcome vetos,unfortunately) in both houses and tell me again how many dems voted their convictions or whatever it is by giving w & dick everything they asked for and now it appears they are giving obama everthing he wants such as more money to support useless imperial wars.

There are some things the have voted for but regulation of money houses is not one of them nor the lobbyists or the issue with the conservative owned msm monopolies.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 4, 2009 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

The 1st enemy is the DLC New Class Democrats.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

Interesting view, Diamand.  But Zbig, Carter’s security chief and an inetensely anti-Russian Pole, has stated that the US was trying to overthrow the Afghan governement six months BEFORE the Russians came in. Are you saying this was done without Carter’s knowledge and consent?  Highly unlikely.  And the Iranian Mullah’s who were revolutionaries that had just come to power were bribed?

Anything is possible in the murky intellignece world, but this does blunt my point that the FIRST enemy of the American people are the Dems, who are preventing us from fighting the Gop policies.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 4, 2009 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment

Both political parties aren’t the same, one, the Republican Party, represents the elite aristocrats, the inner party, the old and the new moneyed party; the other party, the Democratic Party’s DLC members represent elite capitalist toadies, the academic Professionals New Class, the Middle Class, who work or toady for their money to the elite corporate capitalists—- there is a big difference; the 20% toady population are part of the common population, who chose to separate from the common population, leaving the rest of the common population to fend for themselves without political representation, the 70% majority commons population class and culture, that are sometimes called the working class, the lower class or whatever, but are 70% of the United States population, that are slowly being fleeced of everything they have or ever hope to have for themselves and their progeny; and if nothing is done to subvert the economic destruction of the 70% commons population, the destruction will continue until the 70% MAJORITY commons population of the United States are sleeping in makeshift paper boxes, wearing rags and working for peanuts, so that big conservative capitalists can keep all the profit, as there will no longer be any small capitalists.

Small capitalists are also slowly being done away with.  It is now a violation of law to cook up a stew or cookies and take it to a church social, because someone may like it and a market may be started, so gift cooking is now an unhealthy hazard that violates the law and must be dispensed with.

Similar to an old city law in Oklahoma City to keep from taking away the barbers trade, the barber lobby of the city finagled a way to make it a violation of the law to cut your family members hair, because hair on the floor was deemed a health hazard.  I don’t know if that law still stands, but it definitely did.

It is time for the 70% MAJORITY COMMONS POPULATION to stand up and not passively allow the destruction of 70% of the population of the nation into poverty and subservient slavery.

Report this

By samosamo, June 4, 2009 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

Truly a work of significance of having the 2 ‘major’ parties always at the front always playing each other as the good/bad bad/good just to keep that level of obfuscation at a point that more attention to who or whom are responsible or the cause of such and such becomes the major issue when both are culpable and then one or the other start bantering back and forth to sway attention to the least bit of importance.

When the reality is that both parties are the same, as has been said before, but they just ping pong each other to keep the vision of the ‘spectator’ sport of my team versus your team as the dividing factor.

Report this

By haroldmh, June 4, 2009 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Perhaps I have missed it, but with all the falter-all about whether Reagan or Clinton, let us not forget it was actually Carter that started it all.  To quote, From the website “Liberalism Resurgent,” Steve Kangas points out: “As for deregulation, that actually began under Carter, not Reagan. Carter deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil and interest rates, and set up much of the deregulation machinery that Reagan would later use.”

See, You Decide: Republican, Democrat, or Other which I first wrote about in August of last year.

Report this

By BerzerkleyEd, June 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reagan did it? Well not all of it but he did set the tone that created a lot of our problems.

Carter’s energy policy was pushing us towards energy independence which, if continued, would have negated the need for desert storm and the Iraq war, since we wouldn’t have needed the oil. 9/11 wouldn’t have happenned because there would not have been any US troops in the Muslim holy lands protecting *our* oil supply.

Reagan sold supply side economics as a way to provide capital to industry so they could retool and modernize. They took the money and built factories overseas to avoid the environmental restrictions and high wages in the US. Nobody told them they had to spend the money here.

Decline of the unions, outsourcing? Ronald Reagan

Dismantling new deal regulations? Ronald Reagan

9/11? Ronald Reagan

Report this

By truedigger3, June 4, 2009 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind wrote:
“No, FT.  It’s not conspiracy by the Dims. It’s cowardice, short-sightedness and flat-out stupidity that brings them to “conspire” with the Re-thugs.  Perhaps a brain and spine transplant would help.”
____________________________________________________

ITW,

It is not cowardice, short-sightedness and flat-out
stupidity either. Don’t forget, currently,
both Dems and Repubs work for the same master which
is big Money/Business and have to follow the same scritpt, so there is little room for the Dems to maneuver and all what is
left is rhetoric and empty promises, and when they are in power and it is time to fullfil these promises and act we get make-believe measures that amount to nothing.
That is why Obama is ideal now for the ruling class.
He is gifted orator and superb con artist with a
mastery of make-believe measures without any real
substance.

Report this

By diamond, June 4, 2009 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment

The argument put forward by folktruther that you have to destroy the Democrats to get at the Republicans is ingenious but completely misguided. This argument, that I’ve seen many Americans make on various sites, that the Democrats are responsible for everything the Republicans do because they should have stopped them, ignores the reality of the political culture in which the Democrats have to operate. It is slowly (very slowly) changing but up until now the Democrats have been at the mercy of the mainstream media who will tell any lie and do any dirty deed for the right. You only have to look at comments made elsewhere about Jimmy Carter, claiming he funded the Muhajeddin in Afghanistan. In fact, the truth is the exact reverse: Jimmy Carter refused to give the CIA the authorization they needed to fund the Taliban/Muhajeddin. This was their cue that he wasn’t a team player and could not be re-elected under any circumstances.

According to the testimony of a mafia man (Angelo Izzo) at the famous terrorism/mafia trials in Italy the CIA then got the funds for the Taliban from the Columbian cocaine cartels, the Turkish mafia that handles the heroin that comes out of Afghanistan and both the Italian and American mafia and also from Saudi Arabia. But they didn’t stop there. Richard Brenneke, a CIA covert operative, gave testimony under oath that he was given the job by the CIA of laundering $40 million specifically for use in greasing the palms of the Mullahs in Iran so that they wouldn’t release the Americans hostages they were holding until after the presidential election - which Carter lost. Two weeks after Reagan took power the Mullahs released the hostages. Reagan looked like a hero and Carter was gone. It always amuses me greatly when Americans talk about the Congress as if it can actually operate as it’s meant to when it has another ‘state within a state’ pulling the strings behind the scenes. The entire disaster in the Middle East is the work of the CIA. The rubble of American democracy in which you all currently live is the work of the CIA. Who do you think tapped Bill Clinton’s white house phone and wired Monica Lewinsky for sound? I’m damn sure it wasn’t Linda Tripp who wouldn’t have known one end of a wire from the other and Monica certainly didn’t know how to put the wire on herself. Clinton had also proven not to be a team player by wanting to send drones into Afghanistan to kill bin Laden and the Taliban leadership, who the CIA had other plans for entirely. They knew his weakness was women. You can fill in the rest yourself. By the way, the CIA took Brenneke to court for lying under oath. The jury found him not guilty on all five charges believing him, and not the CIA. Wise jury.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 4, 2009 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

There appears to be a considerable consensus that the Gops and Reagan set the ideological tone and the Dems were complicit in performing the legislation that led to neoliberalism.  But, I contend, even though the Gops are worse, it is the Dems that must be attacked first.  The historial reason is that they lead inference for Gop policies.

This insn’t primarily because they are cowardly or spineless, as Inherit states, although, God knows, he is right; they are. It’s because of the economic changes underlying the politial process.  The US ruling class has used globalization to destroy the unions, so the Dems were less dependant and supportive of them, and started courting the suburban professional class.

This is emphasized in a 1995 book by Michael lind, THE NEXT AMERICAN NATION. (Stay away from this stuff, it will rot your mind.  Look what it has done to me.)  But midst the usual gibberish, Lind is quite prescient of future trends, especially the professional-managerial class.

The progressive part of the professional class is liberal in social issues, such as gays, women, etc, but conservative economically, like the Gop professionals.  So there is an economic consensus of the parties, which dispute only cultural values.  There has always been a bipartisan foreign policy consensus so the parties now resemble each other except for ideological cultrual issues, like abortion.

What is necessary to to mobilize the population to attacking the ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN POLICY CONENSUS OF BOTH PARTIES.  This must BEGIN with attacking the Dems, because they are supporting the Gop policies.  Obama is continuing Bush foreign and financial policies.

So when Scheer- and I am placed in the uncomfortble position of defending him- emphasizes Dem complicity in neoliberal parties over Reagan and Gop ideology, he is putting the emphasis where it belongs, as far as the population is concerned. Because it is necessary to support a political transformtation away from Dem-Gop conflict to the population opposing BOTH wings of the ruling class power structure.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, June 4, 2009 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

Reagan is the figurehead of the start of the decline of New Deal America. He and his ilk made a concerted effort (Republican & Democrat) to do it and have succeeded so far in doing so. Obama is carrying on the tradition in so many ways. But then isn’t he part of the faceless cabal that is finally getting their way after losing in 1934 to take over the country and run it their way? I say yes. The Gipper was the avuncular face of it and here they go again with Obama. Another snake in a suit. Look at what they do, not how they act.

Reagan isn’t the ultimate villain nor is he blameless either.

Report this

By samosamo, June 4, 2009 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

REAGAN DID DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, you may have your way in this, mr. scheer, but you can’t have it all your way because ronnie mcdonald reagan sure had a not so small part in this continuing financial disaster because the S&L crises of the 80s damn sure happened on his watch and it is still happening as those crises, being the plain ole ponzi schemes of that current robbery, have morphed into the current financial terrorist attack on this country and the world.

So why haven’t you put that curious fact into this article that lays blame(if that is really necessary)where is should be lain?

Particiularly since this was the period where ‘control fraud’ was honed to a fine art by the complicity of reagan’s administration and charles keating and his special bought and paid for crooks, the keating 5, who got away scotfree thereby relegating this concept of ‘control fraud’ as a legitimate means of ‘doing buisness’ no matter how illegal it is and how many laws are broken to enable the grand larceny that continues to this very goddamn day, hour, minute and second.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 4, 2009 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

Robert Scheer:

Reagan did do it, he began the cumulative effect of economic destruction in the United States.  Don’t lie to yourself, Reagan can’t be left out of the conservative destruction as he did his part, and he played his part well.

Report this

By liecatcher, June 4, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

So many folks keep insisting that Reagan is the villain. If the fact that the evil deeds were perpetrated on his watch makes him guilty, then so be it.
However, with all that we now know about the Bush Criminal Dynasty, the CheneyBurton miscreants,the real workings of the FED, & especially THE NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, the reality appears to be that V.P. Bush was pulling Reagan’s strings as directed by his cabal.
Furthermore, when we compare what Obama promised & what he has done, we can easily conclude that he is another cabal puppet.

Report this

By Rontruth, June 4, 2009 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

Banks and bankers are only interested in an easy life, paying as little as possible to their employees, with limited healthcare coverage, then buying Congress and the White House off, thus, robbing their own employees of the means whereby they could purchase less expensive healthcare, and causing them to suffer less in workers’ rights, paying Congress to vote for wars that the bankers benefit from when the depositors’ funds are used to lend to contracted weapons manufacturers, and private soldiers now in Iraq and other places.

Back some 45 years ago, they all sighed with relief after the echoes of the Kennedy assassination died away, and the public was told that a “lone-gunman” had killed their president. Their president had turned a deaf ear and blind eye to the bankers and the Military-Industrial Complex weapons manufacturers whose minions in Congress had come up with scenarios as bad as what happened on 9/11/2001.

One such set of terrorist attacks that would be perpetrated by the Pentagon, and blamed on Fidel Castro, was the “Northwoods Project.” This was a proposal to have Americans attack Americans by flying repainted WW11 bombers, and bombing and killing enough Americans such that the US population would demand that Kennedy order an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy turned it down.

That was one of the last straws that brought about his assassination as soon as they found that Oswald, an FBI informant (S-179), whom they thought was working for them against Castro, and he was, but when they decided to hit JFK, he reported it to his FBI bosses.

The CIA, who knew Hoover was homosexual, threatened Hoover with being outed, and punked him into allowing them to set his Informant up to take the blame for what he (Oswald) had reported to the FBI, specifically that the CIA was planning to kill Kennedy over his failures with Castro, and ordering the withdrawal from the Vietnam conflict.

This was, and is, the culture of deception that we have in more recent years grown so accustomed to. We live under a cloak that has the letters, D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y, printed on the outside. But, we have not enforced the laws that are on the books that would bring the real villainous “leaders” to justice, and thus vindicate our Constitution, and the freedoms we could all easily lose, if we go on long enough, hiding our heads in the proverbial sand.

Report this

By pu5erfish, June 4, 2009 at 9:37 am Link to this comment

I am both a regular reader and listener (on Left, Right and Center) of Bob Scheer’s, and often agree with his perspective if not always his style.  He does however have certain consistent positions.  Amongst these are the primacy of Lawrence Summers, Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, and Bill Clinton’s signing of the Financial Services Modernization Act as the real villians in the current financial crisis. 

The role that those three played cannot be disputed.  But prior to they and all their actions,  a tidal shift in the economic culture of the nation had occurred; one that encouraged people away from savings and towards debt.  Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the tone of the country’s economic discourse.  Under his leadership, debt financing became the catalyst for the darker more individualistic side of our national morality to become the dominant mood.  You can even see the rise to political power of the religious right as directly reactionary to this lurch towards selfishness.

Reagan changed utterly the character of government’s relationship to the people, and of our relationship to each other.  Without that shift, none of the rest of it gets enough traction to create the damage it has now wrought.

In his repetitive mantra about the evils of Summers and the rest, Scheer is missing the beginning of the arc.  Trust Krugman for that.

Report this

By truedigger3, June 4, 2009 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

Many posters expressed my views and wrote in details about what and how each one of them contributed to the current disaster.
Reagan set the tone and started what is the so called “the Reagan Revolution” which changed the direction of the government and how it is perceived by the people.
Instead of looking at the government as a force for good who helped the little guy and strived for full employmnet and regulated business/finance to protect the little guy, Reagan changed that to looking at government as a clumsy and inefficient entity that should keep hand off of regulating business/finance and let the little guys fend for themselves under the guise of personal responsibilty, which was a smoke screen to let big Money/business run amock and exploit the average citizens.
Clinton did considerable damgae, because he campaigned on a populist platform and promising help for the average citizens but what he did was that he reinforced what was going on and deregulated big Money/busiess more and accelerated globalization and “free trade” that devastated the middle class.
Both Reagan and clinton are real villains and share considerable responsibility for what is going on now.
Both of them were servants for big Money/business
and did what they have been told to do.

Report this

By Eric, June 4, 2009 at 7:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I also have to differ with Scheer.  If there is one person who symbolizes “less taxes, smaller government,” it’s Ronald Reagan.  He planted and fertilized the idea that government was bad.  Humans, for the most part being naturally greedy, want oversight removed from anything that impedes their greed.  And that is what we have witnessed.  Reagan is the father of this ideology.  Not Clinton.  To blame Clinton is to take our eyes off the ball.  What we have to kill is Reaganism.  As long as people fall for this fools simplistic world view, what we have been witnessing will happen again and again.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 4, 2009 at 6:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Good points beer doctor. Also media for some odd reason decided to go easy on Reagan, even when they knew he was wrong, which was practically every time he opened his mouth.

Report this

By tp, June 4, 2009 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wonder about the conversation. I think most contributors are listening to each other. Some, like Marshall only listen to a dinner bell of numbers. It is in a Web of Debt that Marshall figures the value of people as he is, in my gut opinion, a bankster - the more the debt the better for him. Debt to a bank is like a deposit multiplied by 10. The production of a person is worthless as few actually produce, in our country at least. So here, a production potential has almost no value. I don’t think Marshall is interested in rebuilding the production in America but making a buck by plunging us further in debt using his figures to invest in those too big to fail banks or companies that move out, like Wal-Mart who nurture production abroad almost exclusively. Ralph Nader said GM will take their bankrupt bailout money and move production to China in order to survive. The banks simply lend more money that they themselves print. We American dreamers will continue to buy until we reach that magic number that cuts off our credit—again. Then what? I don’t know, do you Mr Marshall?
  There was also a question of health care by Hawkeye, I believe. You never answered that one or I missed it. Why not share your prodigious knowledge? Why should our country continue using insurance companies to pay our hospital and pharmaceutical bills when the cost is approximately 40% more than it would be if paid for by none profit single payer health care, and that is a question devised with numbers from my average or even below average memory of estimates given. They also say the care provided would be much better when profit motivated treatments would be eliminated. If single payer health care was approved all citizens would be covered and not dropped because there would be no limit on care. As every one knows there is a limit of what an insurance company will pay.
  One more thing—Obama may have a democratic support but that don’t mean he is doing what his rhetoric suggest. 6 Years ago he was a proponate of single care health care. Just as he has turned his back on his policy of openness on the torture issue, he put off closing Guantanamo, refuses to prosecute war crimes, continues Bushits Warrantless wire tapping & spying on Americans, put us all in debt to these tyrants who put us in this mess by more than 13 trillion dollars and almost every issue is decided behind closed doors in a room picked out by the same banksters that ripped us off. So, what difference does your arguments make that would find out if Reagan was the crook or Clinton when all the factual figures are only available to those tyrants in a secret meetings? If people didn’t learn that voting makes no difference when the Iran Contra hearings took place, at which time Reagan developed a case of Alzheimer about a ploy that he used before he took office. Years later the truth came out that none other that Bush senior, then the CIA director, made the first deal with a country they had established as a terrorist country - Iran. So, this argument don’t make any difference. The facts point to a dictatorship. My suspicions remain pointed at the banks that are too big to fail. They are the wizard behind the curtain which has been there since 1913 when the feds took control of our money.
The web of debt is their pot of gold!  Ellen Brown has the story. Check it out!!!!
tp??

Report this

By Rontruth, June 4, 2009 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

Clinton was a very intelligent magician. He figured out that if you spend tax money where it will be immediately spent in local economies all over the country, THAT puts people back to work. THAT makes spenders out of what were welfare recipients. That brings down deficit spending while turning even more people into workers. THAT created 22,500,000 new jobs at better pay than had been the case before the Reagan/Bush, Sr. recessions, and under RReagan’s first term, a near depression when unemployment hit 11.2%, even when some indicators had been removed from the unempoyment statistics.

When Clinton deregulated areas of the economy through legislation, it was AFTER he had built up the jobs situation through increased spending in his first term in office. It was simply a matter of spending a paltry $40 Billion on a public works program that began the upward spiral. That is where the vast improvement in our economy began. Republicans did everything they could think of in efforts to try to deny Clinton that program. They are the elitest oligarchs who should be put in stocks in the pillory for their wanton selfishness and service to the rich.

The wealthy are all the REOpublicans serve. The Dems secret in turning an economy around is not that they “believe in using government to oppose the corporatists,” as one respondent said in a post on a “Reagan Didn’t Do It” article. It is that Democrats understand that you have to act in ways that favor BOTH, the unemployed AND rich, causing each of them to actually serve the needs of the other. THAT is what keeps economies going and, pardon this Clintonian expression, “GROWING.”

We Dems know. We had Clinton for eight years, and even Republicans LOVED the guy. 22% of them voted for Bill in 1996. He won by almost 8 million votes over “15%, 15%, 15%” Bob Dole whose policies if they had been enacted would have bankrupted the country far more than Bush, Jr. or Sr. had.

Bob Dole’s chances were nixxed when, after he sent Monica Lewinsky, the babe who tempted Clinton into waving his finger and saying he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, loar hia chance at glory when the Media, realizing the disaster that would occur IF Dole were elected, and knowing the Clinton/Lewinsky story, decided to keep it quiet until after Clinton was safely re-elected.

Once in a long while, the corporate media does do something right. That was one of them.

Report this

By Mitchell, June 4, 2009 at 6:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Dems would never have come up with or sign off on this economy destroying crap if the Dem pols hadn’t been shown first by the GOP how personally lucrative it was to do the wrong thing i.e. all the big contributors’ $$$. Without that personal profit motive, there’d be no DLC, no Clintonoid triangulation, no gutting of post-Great Depression supervision, as it were. Yes, the Dems’ hands are dirty, but they pioneered none of this. The Raganites did.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, June 4, 2009 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

Judging by the amount of comments posted, this is a very lively thread indeed. I will only add that it has been a many decades long desire by Republicans, conservatives, Libertarians and general right wing scowls, to do away with all of the New Deal legislative reforms that they deem to be products of an evil socialism.
Ronald Reagan, the one time actor and then SAG president ( who thought it was his duty as screen actors guild president, to report back to the government on any unAmerican activities he saw from his fellow actors), said as POTUS that “government IS the problem”. This appealed to those who harbor the rugged individualist wet dream that all a man needs is his land, his vision, and to be left alone. Never mind that this is a total fantasy. This was beside the point, Ronald Reagan was quite astute at transforming fantasy into accepted reality. If someone double checked the facts and found a few discrepancies? Never mind. He simply can not recall.
The main thrust to unlock the man and the land and his vision thing, was to eliminate all laws standing in the way, such as minimum wage, child labor restrictions, right to work ergo no unions, occupational health and safety, environmental restrictions on business, and the biggest of all Taxes, especially on the wealthy. This was always at the core of Reagan administration policy. A movement that found its completion with President Bill Clinton, when he signed into law the legislation that put an end to the financial restrictions imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934, so that the Wall Street Wise Guys could unharness that glorious economic engine which has led to the present predicament.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 4, 2009 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

Folktruther, June 4 at 6:08 am #

The reason that it is important to detail the Dem’s responsiblity for America’s current disastrous position is that the political function of the Gops is ro move the right wing to the righ, while the function of the Dems is to neutralize and dilute the militancy of the left.  It is the Dem leaders that must be fought first to develop the mobilization of the population, so its important to show how the Dems implemented Reagan’s ideology.
***************************************************

You give the Dims far too much credit for brains, backbone and planning, FT.  I think they moved to the Right out of flat-out inertia and a desire to retain SOME power.  The defection began when RR beat Tip O’Neil on the economic policy and a large number of blue-dog Dims defected, mainly because they thought they’d lose their seats in 1982 if they didn’t (Reagan already had a Re-thug Senate, and kept it through 1986).  In 1994, they DID lose in what was the most catastrophic failure the party had seen since post-WWI and the disillusionment with Woodrow Wilson—Both houses of Congress were decisively lost.

Since then, the spinelessness of the Dims in Congress has been despicable.  In 2006, when both houses were recaptured, Reid and Pelosi had their marching orders from US, the voters.  They ignored them in so much in their byzantine maneuverings for “power” that they gave up REAL power when it was needed most. 

Now they have a nearly unstoppable majority and they are STILL too fuckin’ timid and intimidated to USE the power, still, like Pavlov’s dogs salivating whenever the Re-thugs ring the bell.

No, FT.  It’s not conspiracy by the Dims. It’s cowardice, short-sightedness and flat-out stupidity that brings them to “conspire” with the Re-thugs.  Perhaps a brain and spine transplant would help.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 4, 2009 at 3:08 am Link to this comment

The reason that it is important to detail the Dem’s responsiblity for America’s current disastrous position is that the political function of the Gops is ro move the right wing to the righ, while the function of the Dems is to neutralize and dilute the militancy of the left.  It is the Dem leaders that must be fought first to develop the mobilization of the population, so its important to show how the Dems implemented Reagan’s ideology.

This is necesssary to change the political orientation of the population from Dems vs Gops, to people vs power. In politically reorienting the population, it is necessary to adopt some of the stances of the right. Notably, conservatives are against government and taxes because they are for the power of the rich, whilie liberals are in favor of using government against the rich.

But the historical situation has changed dramatically.  The rich have taken over both parties and control the govenment, so now it is necessary for the population to OPPOSE the government as well as the corporations, becuase the government is a tool of the corporations.  Instead of supporting government, it is necessary to ideologically oppose the whole corp-state which the ruling class uses to rule.

That is why Scheer’s article is valuable; it gets us out of the relexsive Dem vs Gop mindset, espoused by Krugman.  And the reflexsive mindset of many TD truthers, who regress to it even knowing that Obama is continuing Bush policies.

Since the Gop and Dems have always been bipartisan in foreign affairs, and the world has assumed a greater importance in domestic affairs, the two parties differneces have narrored.  And since globalization has destroyed the unions, the Dems are competing for the same suburban money and votes as the Gops.  therefore to enlighten the population, including the class-based Educated population, it is necessary to emphasize how the parties are similar.  Which in effect Scheer does, whatever his conscious intention.  He’s always tried to be on the cutting egde of a corrupt truth tradition, which iw why I’ve always liked some of his pieces.

But of course he is ultimately on the side of power, not on the side of the people.

Report this

By ardee, June 4, 2009 at 2:58 am Link to this comment

Oh, Marshall, I wonder that, as a seemingly intelligent guy   , you use such a trite and tired canard as dismissing any citing that disagrees with your own personal opinion as coming from a partisan or leftist website. It is rather disingenuous of you, and a fairly childish habit as well.

Who’s behind zFacts, oil companies or what?  Nope.  I’m Steve Stoft and this is my web site. I’m building it with a little help from my friends and volunteers, but so far, it’s mostly my work. I’m a Ph.D. economist and my day job is consulting for electricity markets—California, PJM, ISO-NE. That provides 99.9% of the funding for this site.  (Google ads are now providing about $12 / day). My professional web site is stoft.com, my blog is zReason.

What are your biases?  At heart, I’m a scientist; that means I’m a skeptic. I don’t trust easy answers especially from politicians. I also don’t trust extremists, either left or right. But I don’t think these are biases; they’re based on observation. It’s hard to know your own biases, but I believe openness, information, and clear thinking are helpful—maybe those are my bias.

Why are you building zFacts?  I like to figure things out, and I don’t like deceptions or misunderstandings, especially ones that harm people. So with zFacts, I get to investigate many of my interests and perhaps expose some deceptions and clear up some misperceptions.

Are you opposed to alternative energy?  No, I love the idea of harnessing wind and solar. I’m just opposed to hyping things that don’t work to well-meaning people. Corn ethanol is not working. Brazilian ethanol may be. Home-based solar voltaics are a rip off. The better hybrid cars are a great idea. With my physics and economics background, I’m sorting this out for myself and posting it on zFacts.

What about global warming, markets, poverty and neocons?  I admit it; I’m curious about a lot of different things. Global warming is looking pretty likely, but the case is not quite closed. No need to wait till we’re 100% sure of getting mugged before we take action. Markets are amazing for what they can do, but are no more of a cure-all than antibiotics. Poverty is mainly a social-economic problem, but individual responsibility plays a key role in any solution. Neocons venerate clear thinking, secretiveness and deception. Unfortunately those keen on secrets and deceptions, also have secret agendas.

What’s on the zFacts agenda?  I plan to keep working on puzzles I find interesting. Would you like to document an important scandal, figure out who really owns the ownership society, or just help organize the site? If you’re willing to work carefully I’d love have your help. Almost everything remains to be done.
    ...................

You are free to distort the facts of the matter at hand as you will, that in itself is a fairly common occurrence in political debate, and a sword that cuts both ways as well. But your history of endless bias and distortion is certainly piling up and you should be aware that people do notice.

Clinton, who I found to be an average leader at best, balanced the budget, his stewardship of the economy resulted in full employment and he paid down the national debt. His methodologies left a lot to be desired in my opinion but those are indeed the facts. Oh and as a sidebar, the number of abortions during his presidency fell every year after the first, signs of a thriving economy as women could afford to have babies.

Bush 43, on the other hand, broke Reagan’s record for borrowing money, unemployment rose steadily,the budget deficits soared to incredible heights ( depths), and there was that lyting us into war thingie as well.

You may continue to post whatever you choose, I will not descend to your level and call them right wing propaganda, I promise. But I think it obvious by now that you are a follower of Goebbels and Rove.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook