Your conjecture that economic liberalism is “the exact opposite” of neoliberalism as well as the others you’ve mentioned is a gross distortion of reality.
**********
I guess you don’t include Marx on your list of classical economists, though many others would. But Mill? Where does he fit into your schema?

My original point simply concerned the common opposition of classical economists to a “rent-seeking” or rentier economy. Marx certainly deserves inclusion in that category.

My further point was that the ruling economic ethos of our day, call it what you will, does definitely favor rent-seeking in practice, no matter what pretty-sounding theories to the contrary its adherents may spout.

I’m think, as I look about me, I’m seeing us driven toward some form of neo-feudalism characterized by ubiquitous debt peonage under the lash of a harsh, inhuman corporate aristocracy.

What do you see?

Re: whyzowl1:  Your comment:  “God is not the only one who thinks you should be entitled to the fruits of your labor, so do the classical liberal economists of whom Marx is arguably the last, with their line stretching back through John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo to Adam Smith.”

I disagree with your inclusion of Marx and John Stuart Mill as “classical liberal economists”.  They were not.  In fact, your definition of “classical liberal economist” is in error.  From Wiki:

“Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism. It is the political and economic philosophy that supports and promotes the economic system of capitalism, in the laissez-faire sense. Opposing government intervention in the economy, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism and socialism….

...Today, economic liberalism is associated with classical liberalism, “neoliberalism”, “propertarian” libertarianism, and some schools of conservatism, particularly liberal conservatism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

Your conjecture that economic liberalism is “the exact opposite” of neoliberalism as well as the others you’ve mentioned is a gross distortion of reality.

Your commment: “The reigning economic theory in the United States—known as “neo-classical economics,” “neoliberalism,” “Friedmanomics,” “supply-side economics” or “globalization”—is the exact opposite.”

You want a fiscal conservative look to Ron Paul. He votes against every unbalanced budget and every unconstitutional bill that would further expand the role of the government.

DaveZx3,

“Additionally, whyzowl1’s premise: “I believe it is essentially a spiritual and religious project—though one would expect many, if not most, socialists to arch their backs and hiss like cats at the very idea.”

If he would have stayed with only the word religious, I could agree, because almost anything can be termed a religion.  But he said “essentially a spiritual and religious” project”  Once he put spiritual in there, he went outside of the boundaries.  I have never heard of the left as being descrbied as spiritual and religious.

The major problem I have with them is the denial of God.  God states that I am entitled to the fruits of my labor, and God states that you should not steal.  That means I can own stuff, and you can’t take it.  So I would like to stick with God, thank you.  I am not talking about religion, I am talking about God.  Hopefully the difference is obvious.
**********

First, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my original post, Dave. And thank you Outraged for picking up the thread in my absence and doing such a fine job of answering some of Dave’s points.

Socialists are not the strangers to spirituality that you may think, Dave—even if they too often think so themselves. The Sandinista movement in Nicaragua, for example, arose out of church-based self help groups during the brief flowering of the Liberation Theology, “preferential option for the poor” movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America. There are numberous Christian Socialist political parties in Western Europe, as well.

In fact, the whole socialist/communist project is kind of suspect, don’t you think? Communism is essentially a bourgeois idea; and why should these members of the bourgeoisie give a damn about the fate of the proletariat in the first place, if they didn’t, as they state, believe in a “greater brotherhood of man,” emphasizing values of solidarity, equality and fairness?

God is not the only one who thinks you should be entitled to the fruits of your labor, so do the classical liberal economists of whom Marx is arguably the last, with their line stretching back through John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo to Adam Smith. Their idea was to promote an economy purged of rentier income, free, to the fullest extent possible, of land-rent, monopoly rent, and interest overhead. Their aim was precisely to provide everyone with the fruits of their labor, rather than letting banks and landlords siphon off the economic surplus.

The reigning economic theory in the United States—known as “neo-classical economics,” “neoliberalism,” “Friedmanomics,” “supply-side economics” or “globalization”—is the exact opposite. Our economy has been thoroughly financialized and parasitic, extractive, nonproductive rentiers empowered. Wall Street’s plan for us all is perpetual debt peonage, and we should already be able to see through the smoke and mirrors that our standard of living is going to be cut by 15% or so in order to pay off the bad bets of the Wall Street high rollers. I’d say it’s time to push back—hard. What do you think?

More generally speaking, this is what we seem to have lost in our time, that sense of what a properly functioning economy should look like. We’d all better get to work on that, don’t you think? Because this latest iteration of capitalism is dead, if not nearly gone, and capitalism as we have known it is a system that has no future. Not, that is, if we’re to have one.

It is the media /military/industrial complex that has a strangle hold on reality. The media is responsible for the disinformation that divides us on every issue.Television media especially, is the reason half the people(I am being generous ) do not know or care WTF is going on in this country.

Re: DaveZx3

Your comment: “My statement was that capitalism and communism are not inherently evil.  Honest people could participate in either without resorting to totalitarianism.  Purity is not an erroneous premise, it is just corrupted by corrupt people.  I am a capitalist, I own property, but I am not totalitarian.  It is wrong to say that everyone who wants to own capital is totalitarian.”

Both these systems when implemented without constraints or as many claim in their “pure form” ARE INHERENTY EVIL BECAUSE they are extremist.  Promoters of both systems claim that the reason that their specific system hasn’t worked is because it wasn’t implemented in its “pure form”.  This is backwards logic, we can see historically that neither system can be implemented in its “pure form” without ruthlessness and/or corruption.

Again, your paragraph confuses two premises; a large capitalist system and an individual using capitalistic principles on a small scale.  The latter can easily be utilized in a mixed economy and because of its small size is not a threat to the larger mixed economy.  In the case of a “pure capitalist system” on a large scale this is not the case.  Mixed economies and political systems are more balanced and inherently check corruption and/or totalitarian control.

Additionally regarding your comment, “It is wrong to say that everyone who wants to own capital is totalitarian.”  I am not claiming such, IMO this is your stance by stating “Purity is not an erroneous premise, it is just corrupted by corrupt people.”  I say this because you imagine that “pure capitalism” can exist without ruthless totarlitarian control politically and economically.  It can’t.  Purity in a large scale systems cannot be controlled except by totalitarian tactics.

In purity, capitalism and communism will both strike down ruthlessly all ideas and initiatives which do not endorse the pure principles or tenets of the particular system, hence the totalitarian tactics.  Those who believe in this purity will actively engage in corruption and ruthlessness to protect their erroneous BELIEF.  For this reason “purity” always devolves into totalitarianism since it cannot survive without it.

Wow, its obviously Democratic hack writer week here at Truthdig.

Sirota, Connason, Ellen Goodman,  heck, they even dug the awful Marc Cooper out of whatever hole he normally hides in.

As we enter another election year, expect to see some sites that have been relatively ‘progressive’ to suddenly turn into Democratic party hack sites. I hope Truthdig isn’t doing that.  But a glance at today’s ‘frontpage’ on the site is not encouraging.  One Democratic hack writer after another all over that page.  Yuck!
—————-
America has had ‘professional bullshit salesmen’ for a very long time.  Go back and read Hunter S. Thompson’s writings from the 70’s if you doubt it goes that far, which it most certainly does.

We are the country that has had legions of bullshit salesmen convincing us that the Philippinos needed to be murdered, that the Indians were on our land and needed to be murdered, and that slavery was wonderful and that the slaves loved us for it.

Putting the words “America” and “professional bullshit salesmen” in the same sentence is nothing new.  After all, America invented the ‘PR’ industry.  What more needs to be said.

You have no idea how much those of US in our 40’s and 50’s LOVE to hear the ‘Bucket List” group drone on about the deficit.
Sweethearts work on your List. You’ve fucked things up enough already- Thank You very much.
Do you actually think anybody want to hear their ‘ideas’?? Do we Look Insane, or are you?
It wasn’t just the Bushies who drove this country into a ditch the Repugs have been drunk driving for decades. Starting right about the ...Nixon adminsitration, when Rummy and Cheney slithered into the WH.
for a number of these so called Deficit Hawks, their voting records over the last few decades may warrant more than just a disregard for their opinion. It may require, a warrant for their arrest.
No, at this point in the game folks, if your ‘retired’ you may want to do so in the manner of those who were in the mafia, or the Third Reich. find a nice place to keep your head down and your mouth shut. Some of those you’ve left to clean up the mess are really pissed off. Esp since a good number of US have spent the last 3 decades screaming STOP!
We saw it coming when you all got the corner office,Porches, snorting coke and going sockless with loafers in the ‘80’s.Boomers got Fat, got lazy and got greedy.They became the ‘establishment’- what do you think ‘Grunge’ was a rebellion against?
so now my 26 yr old daughter can’t get heathcare because ‘grannys’ worried about her getting her Hover round scooter, she doesn’t really need, But it’s “Free”.
Probably a number of them use them to attend the Teabagger parties. Infuriatingly Ironic

The democrat’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Outraged, November 15 at 6:36 am

“Laissez-faire was not endorsed by “the left” to my knowledge, ever”.

That would have been in the time that US and France were in the aftermaths of their revolutions, late 1700’s to early 1800’s about the time that modern left/right politics became defined.  It is in my history book. 

“Communism and Capitalism, left to their own accord ARE EXTREMIST SYSTEMS.  Without the necessary constraints of business regulation and protection of individual freedom, BOTH endorse totalitarian control.  Communism and Capitalism are predicated upon the same type of fictitious utopian ideals and the erroneous premise of purity”.

My statement was that capitalism and communism are not inherently evil.  Honest people could participate in either without resorting to totalitarianism.  Purity is not an erroneous premise, it is just corrupted by corrupt people.  I am a capitalist, I own property, but I am not totalitarian.  It is wrong to say that everyone who wants to own capital is totalitarian.

“Additionally, whyzowl1’s premise: “I believe it is essentially a spiritual and religious project—though one would expect many, if not most, socialists to arch their backs and hiss like cats at the very idea.”

If he would have stayed with only the word religious, I could agree, because almost anything can be termed a religion.  But he said “essentially a spiritual and religious” project”  Once he put spiritual in there, he went outside of the boundaries.  I have never heard of the left as being descrbied as spiritual and religious. 

The major problem I have with them is the denial of God.  God states that I am entitled to the fruits of my labor, and God states that you should not steal.  That means I can own stuff, and you can’t take it.  So I would like to stick with God, thank you.  I am not talking about religion, I am talking about God.  Hopefully the difference is obvious.

Re: whyzowl1

Your comment:  “too many on both the left and right seem to see the crux of the problem as one of “other people” who have the “wrong ideas,” and that if they could just be corrected, we’d all enter the gates of whatever utopia it is that they imagine. Therefore they attempt to suppress those dangerous “wrong ideas” that might lead men astray.”

I agree.  Regarding the portion of your comment I bolded…. you hit the nail on the head.  It is an IMAGINARY history and an IMAGINARY utopia both seek.  These utopias are simply “wrong ideas”, there’s nothing wrong with having “a wrong idea” (we all do it, hell… it’s part of growing up) as long as one is BALANCED and COGNIZANT enough to see that IN FACT they are wrong when given valid evidence which disproves the epiphany one has of “their great idea”.

Your comment: “it looks like we’re right back to the problem of “having the wrong ideas,” but I don’t really think so.”

Again, I agree.  Because history dictates we will have “wrong ideas”, however “DaveZx3” ALSO hits the nail on the head, with his premise: “It is those who lie, misrepresent, divide, and destroy who are responsible for human misery, and they exist equally across the spectrum, left and right, for they actually do not truly believe in the order of any type of system.”

Re: DaveZx3

Your comment:  “That is about as convuluted a description of right and left as I have ever seen.”

I disagree.  You’ve made several contradictory comments in your post.  In regards to the above… I disagree.  “whyzowl1” is more on than off….definitely.

From reading your post it appears you jump from one century to another and then attempt to connect oppositional positions as supposed proof of your position.

When you claim, “Capitalism, which is often seen as being a demonic characteristc of the right wing, is actually widely practiced in left and right governments of all kinds.  Originally the left loved laissez-faire capitalism.”

Laissez-faire was not endorsed by “the left” to my knowledge, ever.  Nor could it be.  I believe you confuse the movement CALLED “liberalism” in Vichy France before and during the Nazi invasion with what is TODAY called “liberalism” in America.  In Vichy France liberalism is defined by what today in America we call LIBERTARIANISM.  Read Robert Paxton’s “Anatomy of Fascism”.  Mr Paxton is recognized for his definition of fascism.

”“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”  (although if you read his book, which is very good btw, he qualifies this terse definition in detail)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paxton

Your comment: “There is nothing inherently evil about the left or the right, nor capitalism or communism”

Again, I disagree.  Yes there is, and while you acknowledge EXTREMISM as the culprit, this is only half the story.  Communism and Capitalism, left to their own accord ARE EXTREMIST SYSTEMS.  Without the necessary constraints of business regulation and protection of individual freedom, BOTH endorse totalitarian control.  Communism and Capitalism are predicated upon the same type of fictitious utopian ideals and the erroneous premise of purity.

Additionally, whyzowl1’s premise: “I believe it is essentially a spiritual and religious project—though one would expect many, if not most, socialists to arch their backs and hiss like cats at the very idea.”

This is correct, and while whyzowl1 and I could argue the “petty points”.... I agree in the larger sense.  Religion, does not mean belief in a god or gods.  Religion, is anything thing one does religiously or believes.  While the term CAN mean belief in a supernatural power it does not necessarily.

Just so, shift, and so too the “right” a zombie
right. Both have turned collectivist and statist.
They merely wish to see the job done by “their guy”.
That is why I point out that left vs. right is an
illusion. Both favor reduced individual rights,
bloated budgets, and more war. In order to be an
individualist in these times one would first have to
disengage oneself from the fictional left vs. right
dichotomy. The elimination of both the Dem and Rep
parties in needed before any chance will exist for
the public voice to influence elected officials
effectively. The whole notion of “party lines” is ridiculous on the face of it, and is contrary to the
founding principles of the system itself. It has
never conveyed any benefits to us whereas the ills it
has caused are innumerable.

The MIC knows that there is no left in America, merely a memory of the left.  In just six decades Fascism has transformed from an enemy to America’s guiding light.  If there is a left, how did that happen?

whyzowl1, November 14 at 5:31 pm

Sorry, I forgot to attribute my comments just below to the post of whyzowl1, November 14 at 5:31 pm.

“The Left believes in reorganizing the system on the basis of People over Profits, solidarity, empathy, egalitarianism, and due respect for the dignity of every member of our human family. It’s driving force is Love, and, in the end, I believe it is essentially a spiritual and religious project—though one would expect many, if not most, socialists to arch their backs and hiss like cats at the very idea.”

“The American right, on the other hand, believes that men are nothing but animals, and that therefore one and all should just submit to the will of the alpha jackals, mind one’s place in the hierarchy and stay there, and just generally sit down, and shut up. Oh, maybe, if you’re cunning, ruthless and inhuman enough, you too can claw your way up to the position of an alpha or beta jackal, and feed off the carcasses and life force of the weak. And isn’t that an enticing life prospect?”

That is about as convuluted a description of right and left as I have ever seen. 

Leftist governments have generally been characterized by collectivism and a denial of a spiritual or religious element, while the right is more about individualism and the soverign rights of the individual, including the right to practice religion and spirituality. 

The original concept of the left/right spectrum goes back much further than the French Revolutionary era it is usually attributed to.  It has to do with the favorite and honored sitting on the right hand of the ruler.  For insight into the meaning of left, look it up. 

In practice, neither end of the spectrum owns or consistently exhibits empathy, dignity of the individual, or Love for anything but themselves.

Capitalism, which is often seen as being a demonic characteristc of the right wing, is actually widely practiced in left and right governments of all kinds.  Originally the left loved laissez-faire capitalism. 

There is nothing inherently evil about the left or the right, nor capitalism or communism, nor Republican or Democrat. 

It is the evil, self-serving of extremists which ultimately corrupts any legitimate system.  It is those who lie, misrepresent, divide, and destroy who are responsible for human misery, and they exist equally across the spectrum, left and right, for they actually do not truly believe in the order of any type of system.

It has always been my opinion that honest and honorable men and women could be very successful under any type of governmental system.

NPR has become complicit in exempting the military budget, the trillions from the Fed and the Treasury to bankers, as well as to the private ins. corps for health “reform” from any discussion of limiting government spending.

NPR will put on the books all other spending: health care/medicare (“going bankrupt soon”), education, cost of environmental regulations (too much, can’t afford to save the planet), subsidies to dirty energy corps, social welfare programs, i.e. every program that has positive social and environmental impact must be limited due to the deficit.  That’s NPR, our “national public radio”.

People, do not donate to NPR anymore.  It has become nothing but a corporate propaganda outlet.  Donate to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, The Nation, CounterPunch at http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10272009.html
and other orgs with links at Democracy Now.

DieDaily,
It seems that you are expressing some version of postmodernist anomie. I feel your pain.

But just because the United Snakes doesn’t have politics, it doesn’t mean nobody else does. They do; or why else would we have conspired to remove Manual Zelaya from office scant months before a peaceful transition promised to restore the status quo without our intervention?

There is a very real difference between left and right, though it’s very difficult to see it for what it is through all the noise and confusion.

The Left believes in reorganizing the system on the basis of People over Profits, solidarity, empathy, egalitarianism, and due respect for the dignity of every member of our human family. It’s driving force is Love, and, in the end, I believe it is essentially a spiritual and religious project—though one would expect many, if not most, socialists to arch their backs and hiss like cats at the very idea.

As Joseph Campbell suggested, the big question before each of us is: are you going to let the Machine, the system, rob you of your humanity; or are you going to fight to change the system and make it serve human ends?

The bottom line, as I see it: We don’t have to live like animals.

The American right, on the other hand, believes that men are nothing but animals, and that therefore one and all should just submit to the will of the alpha jackals, mind one’s place in the hierarchy and stay there, and just generally sit down, and shut up. Oh, maybe, if you’re cunning, ruthless and inhuman enough, you too can claw your way up to the position of an alpha or beta jackal, and feed off the carcasses and life force of the weak. And isn’t that an enticing life prospect?

Outraged,

Yes, too many on both the left and right seem to see the crux of the problem as one of “other people” who have the “wrong ideas,” and that if they could just be corrected, we’d all enter the gates of whatever utopia it is that they imagine. Therefore they attempt to suppress those dangerous “wrong ideas” that might lead men astray.

Personally, I think the source of “our dilemma” cuts through to the precognitive wellsprings of the essence of what it means to be human—or not. Who’s your god and what’s your motivation? Do you worship the Golden Calf and are you therefore motivated by a cold, inhuman, boundless animal hunger? Or do you worship, for example, Jesus Christ, Allah or the Buddha, in which case your motivation is compassion?

And, of course, if you do worship one of the latter, do you recognize that compassion is in fact your charge and your end, or do you twist their message and image to fit your actual object of worship: the Golden Calf? Isn’t that just what we’re seeing the in so-called “megachurch phenomena.”

I know, it looks like we’re right back to the problem of “having the wrong ideas,” but I don’t really think so. Ideas are, after all, merely the servants of the heart or the belly. Which one rules your thoughts?

“[Nearly 70% of the military budget] is to provide men and weapons to fight in foreign countries in support of our allies and friends and for offensive operations in Third World countries .. Another big chunk of the defense budget is the 20% allocated for our offensive nuclear force of bombers, missiles, and submarines whose job it is to carry nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union… Actual defense of the United States costs about 10% of the military budget and is the least expensive function performed by the Pentagon… “
(Rear Admiral Gene LaRoque, U.S. Navy retired)
“Corporations care very much about maintaining the myth that government is necessarily ineffective, except when it is spending money on the military-industrial complex, building prisons, or providing infrastructural support for the business sector.”
(Michael Lerner)
“Multi-billion-dollar multinational corporations view the exploitation of the world’s sick and dying as a sacred duty to their shareholders.”
(John le Carre’ - author)
“U.S. health expenditures are by far the highest of any country in the world at 15 percent of GDP. No other country spends even 11 percent of GDP. The U.S. also spends much more in absolute dollars. U.S. citizens pay $5,440 on average for health coverage while Canadians, the fourth biggest spenders, shell out $2,927.
In the U.S., 75 million are without insurance at some point every two years while in Canada, government spending provides health coverage for everyone.
According to the International Journal of Health Services, “the average ranking for the United States on 16 health indicators in a 1998 comparative study of 13 countries by Starfield was 12th, second from the bottom.
Insurance companies, for-profit hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors-the historical linchpin of corporate medicine-oppose universal health insurance. They are powerful political players. According to Acumen Journal, “since late 1999 [U.S.] health care lobbying spending has consistently passed that of any other industry. In 2002, that amounted to expenditures of $264 million…the health care industry as a whole accounted for 15 percent of the $1.8 billion in lobbying spending for 2002.”
(Yves Engler)
“Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.”
(John Maynard Keynes)
“The American social infrastructure deteriorates as the Pentagon’s sphere of control widens. Today we find an inverse relationship between growth of the U.S. empire and various measures of domestic well-being.
(Carl Boggs)
“To discredit the single-payer idea, insurers, HMOs, for-profit hospitals and other private interests play on Americans’ long-standing fears of Big Government. In truth, it is the private market that has created a massive bureaucracy, one that dwarfs the size and costs of Medicare, the most efficiently run health insurance program in the U.S. in terms of administrative costs. Medicare’s overhead averages about 2% a year.”
(Donald Barlett and James Steele)

Re: whyzowl1

Your comment:  “I’m quite sure a recent study suggests that people on the left are just as prone to take statements as true that aren’t as people on the right, so long as the erroneous statements dovetail nicely with their own political beliefs.”

There’s a reason for that.  Why…. just today (and that’s no shit) I happened upon this article concerning textbook content.  Check it out. (an excerpt)

“The pressure groups that terrify publishers, and drive them to engage in self-censorship, come from both the political right and the political left. What they have in common is this: They all believe that reality follows language. They all imagine that if they can stop people from seeing certain words or reading about certain concepts, they can stop people from thinking about or committing the acts that the words or concepts imply.
Ravitch tells that publishers generally have allowed right-wing pressure groups to control topics and content. These groups want schoolbooks to reflect their idealized vision of the past—an imaginary past in which all families were happy because they had a strong father, a nurturing mother, obedient children, and a firm religious foundation. Crime, violence, divorce, abortion, and homosexuality did not exist in that fantasy-past, so they must never appear in any schoolbooks.

Leftist pressure groups generally hold the power to control vocabulary, to outlaw words and phrases, and to choose the words, phrases, and modes of usage that will be deemed politically correct. The demands made by leftist groups revolve around their vision of a utopian future in which egalitarianism prevails in all social relationships…..”
http://www.textbookleague.org/124ravbk.htm

On another blog regarding the matter, I found this….lol:

“Last year I was previewing a textbook that I was about to use in a Human Development course I was teaching.  The book was the usual flamboyant montage of facts, grids, and pictures, but then I suddenly ran across a most unusual sentence.  It read, “As a folksinger once sang, how many roads must an individual walk down before you can call them an adult.”  I was stupefied.”
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/chapin/chapin15.html

What a tangled web we’ve woven indeed.

By Jason, November 13 at 8:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“The “Tea baggers” loathe the progressives, who come off as elitist, over educated snobs, but are still mainly working class stiffs. But if the progressives and tea baggers would actually talk, and realize that their problems and worries are the same, we could actually have a galvanized and very effective coalition.”
**********
Good luck.  I do not perceive that this will take place.  The tea baggers are made up of too many followers, as opposed to leaders, and they are too propagandized with diametrically opposed ideas with progressives for any kind of coalition to take place.  Actually, the tea baggers remind me of the early stages of the Nazi Party of Germany before they were voted into office.  If the tea baggers wind up being a real political force here say two to five years from now, this will make the tea baggers real dangerous to USA society overall.
**********
I’m quite sure a recent study suggests that people on the left are just as prone to take statements as true that aren’t as people on the right, so long as the erroneous statements dovetail nicely with their own political beliefs. People who live in glass houses…

That said, I believe the teabagger movement does represent a nascent fascist movement rising within the United States, and all of the friends of freedom in this country—left or right—should be on guard to see that it doesn’t come to fruition.

Hooray for Dave Sirota for pointing out a few rather ugly, glaring truths about America, and some Americans. Yes, where were these deficit hawks when Geedubya was tossing trillions in tax breaks to the richest of the rich? Or launching endless multi-trillion dollar wars? Or handing over tens of trillions more for bailouts to the crooks on Wall Street?

Why does it seem the American ruling class and their barking dogs in the mainstream media carefully reserve their fiscal outrage for any hint of expendentures that just might trickle down, rather than up?

Do you think they might just be cranking up the fog machines? Distracting us from the reality of the latest screwing they’re about to give us in the name of “reform?” I mean, how do you manage to cover 30 million or so currently uninsured Americans… and turn a profit on the deal over ten years while doing virtually nothing to control costs? Does anyone else smell a rat? Many rats? Perhaps, an entire Congress of rats?

This is actually a very good article. Then again I
adore non-partisan reporting, as I regard the
left/right divide as a fiction.

He states: “Another less obvious answer is ignorance
sown by skewed reporting.” and I couldn’t agree more.
In it’s inception the Tea Party movement was an
organic occurrence. Within a year, it was fully co-
opted by Republicans via that snake among snakes Glen
Beck. So now we have the delusional, reactionary
right once again pitted against the delusional,
desolatory left.

Of course, neither fictional construct espouses any
sort of fundamental change. Rather, we are supposed
to stare transfixed like Morris the Cat while the
tennis ball moves right to left, left to right, as
though the left and right hemispheres of the court
have anything at all distinct to offer us.

It’s about time we took our eyes off the pretty ball
and started scanning the crowd, the officials, the
composition of the court, the system itself. This
rather excellent article offers us just such an
opportunity.

What is there to choose between these gladiators of
the left and right? Not a whit. Nothing. Nada.

Look beyond. Scan the crowd. Who are the officials?
Who benefits? What clear evidence exists that either
“side” can help us evolve? Why, none, of course. None
at all.

But…but…but Dave!  The health care bill doesn’t help Israel.  The defense budget does.  What do you expect from Lieberman??

the reform bill is like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.  our representatives ought to say, scrap the whole thing, lets start this thing anew. but they won’t do that so whatever they come up with, i’m going to call a priest, because the patient will die, no matter how many bandaids they place over the wound.

Dumb B the only pool of blathering feeble minded idiots are the liberal democrats. Who’s solutions to the problem is to rob Peter to pay Paul knowing that they can then count on Paul’s votes for ever hence the mind numbing 98% black democratic vote.
Last time I looked at the constitution it required us to pay taxes to provide for the national defense and promote the general welfare. Promoting doesn’t equate to taxes something the libs just don’t get

Dave,

You need to pull you head out of the Neocon manifesto for 5 seconds and take a look around the US. Of course the poor and uneducated are taken advantage of in lesser nations. That’s the point, we, through our constant military exploits, have proven to the rest of the world that we are indeed no better than our communist/facist leaning counterparts in the second and third world.

America is not a relative newcomer to the militant world. We, through our ample MIC that has existed as the single most powerful lobbying entity in the USA since WWII, have been influencing world events (mostly to our detriment) with our bloated and untouchable military since 1946. We have been meddling in the affairs of Central and South America for decades. Southeast Asia has been “touched” by the US military for nearly as long. And of course, The Middle East, Where we have maintained a huge military outpost (Israel) since it’s inception in an attempt to keep the oily muslim hoards at bay.

If you combine our high school dropout rates with our relatively low ratio of college graduates, and the fact we still wollow near the bottom of the education ladder as compared to our other G-20 counterparts, you can only draw the conclusion that we are a very dumb people indeed. The final proof is that many of us keep falling for the same old lines, delivered by different players. We swoon for almost every flag sucking moron that stands on a soapbox.

Nobody noticed how dim and violent and uncompromising a people americans were when we were the cock of the block. But now that our influence is fading and we are struggling just to maintain, we are proving to be not only dumb, but mean spirited as well. And we are armed to the teeth.

Big B, November 13 at 10:56 am

“We have generations of military families who are absolute blithering morons…...despite their poor, uneducated, feeble backgrounds…...for we have a bottomless pit of dumb people in the USA…...”

If you, and others who think like you, would expose the “professional bullshit salesmen”, and rile against their leader instead of riling against the people you call dumb, who may very well be deceived, but not uneducated and dumb, then you may be better able to establish a point. 

I have read that Mao was a “professional bullshit salesman” who recruited millions into war and slaughtered millions more.  Why was there no outcry when a key staffer in the WH states Mao is one of her two favorite philosophers?  Maybe Mao was justified?

The Iranian Madman is also “a professional bullshit salesman” who recruits millions into war and prepares weapons to slaughter millions more.  Where is that outcry?  Maybe Iran is justified?

How about outcry against the stated goals of the Muslim Brotherhood of the US.  They recruit and slaughter, and state they will do so on their website?  Maybe they are justified? 

America is a relative newcomer, and cannot be solely blamed for the troubles of the world.  We vote every four years, yet nothing changes.  Do you not find that strange?  Maybe, once a president starts to become briefed on the realities of the world situation, he suddenly recognizes the need for a strong defense.  But to call every president stupid and the people of the US stupid, is stupid in itself.

Expose all the liars, expose all the lies, but don’t just sit back and call Americans dumb.

Americans are stupid. We do, indeed, champion violent means to almost every end. It’s inbred into us.

We have generations of military families who are absolute blithering morons. They seemingly cannot wait to sacrifice their sons for the american cause dujour, so that they can appear on the local news with their crocodile tears claiming that because their sons made the ultimate sacrifice that they are somehow more of a patriot than you and that those flag drapped coffins justify more violence. I still hold to my old argument that if the military families of our nation would stop providing free cannon fodder to the MIC, that militarism by our nation would end. But they are sold by professional bullshit salesmen who wrap themselves in the flag and tell them that, despite their poor, uneducated, feeble backgrounds, that if they pay the ultimate price that they magically become better than the rich people they are really fighting for. It’s why america’s militant behavior will continue to get worse and even more violent, for we have a bottomless pit of dumb people in the USA.

Speaking of those dumb people, where were these deficit hawks when Reagan and GW were running up huge bills for our future generations to pay. (probably cowering behind the gun nuts who think that there diplay of (violent) firepower is somehow keeping politicos and big businessmen honest). It just proves Sirota’s point, as long as it’s for our “boys in uniform”, there is no amount of cash we will not print to pay for tools of mayhem.

I cannot go past the line “let’s say you’re a congressperson or teaparty leader looking to champion deficit reduction”

Are you kidding me, dude?  Show me one - only one - Congresshore or Teabagger that is looking to chamption anything except their pockets, their own thwarted agenda of hatred, bigotry, racism and ignorance?  One example is all I need and I’ll shut up and go away!

The article starts with a false albeit flawed premise, how can anyone possibly read the rest with an open mind and get anything of value out of it?

Mr. Sirota, David- Please, obviously you forgot that by getting a return in re-
couped costs, it leads to a society of healthy, vibrant, productive and peaceful
members, while the other options provides a big thumping chest, hate, anger and
division among its members.  Now what would you really like to see!  Really David,
lets be real Americans!!

“One clear answer is values—or lack thereof. In our militaristic culture, we are taught to prioritize Pentagon spending over everything else.

Another less obvious answer is ignorance sown by skewed reporting.”

I am not sure what the real answer is, but I am not buying Sirota’s two.

America does not have a militaristic culture in the idea that Americas are sitting home in their living rooms trying to invent ways to send their kids into war.  We go to war because we have bad politicians and greedy business leadership maybe.  A very small group of people lead us into war, and they do not reflect the culture but are anti-American. 

Ignorance sewn by skewed reporting?  There certainly is skewed reporting, but the American public is not stupid.  They may be concerned when they see terrorist activity on their own soil, or understand that regimes run by madmen are realistically going to have the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons at some time in the future. 

Americans have great concern for defense in a world gone mad.  But special interests, corrupt government, dishonest reporting and reasonable disagreements in policy throw the whole effort into a tailspin of inefficiency and waste.  This adds to the concern of the public. 

Our waffling and hanging out our dirty laundry in public also tends to encourage any of our enemies who know that a divided peoople or nation is a lot easier to defeat than a united nation or people.

Get rid of special interests, elect competent and honest politicians and above all, come to a consensus about who, if any, enemies we have.

Absolutely right David.  But, in Lieberman’s case, he’s all for defense expenditures which go to Connecticut while also protecting his friends in the insurance industry.  Joe is a crook and liar ... period.  He cares little about anything other than himself and his friends.  He should be history in a few years.

But you are very correct in emphasizing this defense first stupidity.  How is it that we spend more on defense than everyone else in the world combined and yet we get so little for it.  How about those cool $320 million F-22 fighters?  Awesome but so fragile they can’t be used anywhere that a bullet might be found.  We spend so much for the corruption and yet anyone who stands up and screams is shouted down as a traitor.  We need to dismantle the DOD and all the contractors who suck the life out of our country.  We don’t need them anymore.