Lets see if America has learned from the past....

my guess is that it hasnt.

Bush got elected the first time because he promised tax cuts. The unthinking greedy Americans liked the idea of having more money in their pockets. Of course now our country is in debt up to its ass and things have gone to hell. You would think they would look back and see what has happened to our country and wise up this time. But those greedy bastards can't see beyond their own all mighty dollar, and we may see their votes going in the same direction they did in 2000.

I believe it was Rudy or Mitt who said that all the Dem candidates have promised to raise taxes. That's supposed to be more frightening than the word "terror". So the average Joe says, I don't care about the debt or collapsing infrastructure in our county, I want to buy a big assed TV and I can get it if I vote Republican.

pissed off patricia @ 3:

Bush got elected the first time because he promised tax cuts. The unthinking greedy Americans liked the idea of having more money in their pockets. Of course now our country is in debt up to its ass and things have gone to hell. You would think they would look back and see what has happened to our country and wise up this time. But those greedy bastards can't see beyond their own all mighty dollar, and we may see their votes going in the same direction they did in 2000.

I believe it was Rudy or Mitt who said that all the Dem candidates have promised to raise taxes. That's supposed to be more frightening than the word "terror". So the average Joe says, I don't care about the debt or collapsing infrastructure in our county, I want to buy a big assed TV and I can get it if I vote Republican.

Dear Pissed Off,

Patty, it's the Euro now. Money even the almighty dollar is portable and can be converted to other currencies. I'm thinking that the the Bush family has been shifting out of dollars to euros as soon as the figured out that W. would sink the country. You have to figure that their passports are in order and they can move where ever they want.

Bush's could care less about America.

Happy New Year everyone. (got to get better .... can't get no worst.)

The problem they are facing is that the republican party is still controlled by the extreeme fanatics of the party. To win the primary they have to appeal to them. When it comes to the general election most of the country isn't buying their BS, so watch for them to not mention anything that won them the party's nomination.

Funny... they spent years developing this cult mentality, where the party members mindlessly spout the party slogans, not noticing their leadership no longer actually follows any of those beliefs. (fiscal responsebility for example) This has worked to create a population that will mindlessly attack anything seen as 'liberal'. Don't like something? Just say it is 'liberal' and the party will attack it even if it is something in their best interests. Well now things like the war have proven to be a disaster. Most of the country sees it... but they can't do the reasonable thing. They spent years labeling any opposition or even questioning of the war as 'liberal, coward, surrender' so their base will attack anything that is not 100% support. If they acknowledge what a disaster it is their party will rip them appart, if they continue mindless support the rest of the country will toss them into the trashheap. What is a cult leader to do when the cult is determined to run right off a cliff?

In the most presidential candidate, not a single Republican hopeful used the word “Bush” over the course of the 90-minute event. ...

Should that be 'In the most recent presidential debate, ...'
I'm just guessing what Steve was trying to mean.

As usual, the GOP is pre-cambrian in it's policy. Their policy platform is based on the Michael Douglas movie, 'Wall Street', which celebrated greed as a desirable characteristic of American society. The movie was made in the late eighties, how prescient was that?

The 2008 election can't come too soon, the Bush administration has just discovered 'Dr. Strangelove'.

I'm seeing this on both sides of the aisle:

"MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS".

Unless it's John Edwards. I respect Obama, but I don't trust him as far as I can see him. He lost me when he promised to keep troops in Iraq until the end of his first term as POTUS, when he knows damn well the American people want an end to this war, and wanted it yesterday.

As for the ReThugs, everytime I see any of the candidates, I can't help but connect them to Shrubya; they helped facilitate the theft of two elections.

They own Bush. Period. And any Democratic Candidate worth his/her salt, will remind voters of that fact every chance they get.

The republican hopes for 2008 are based on 'The King is Dead, Long Live the King', rewritten as 'The Klutz is Dead, Long Live the Klutz'.

Let's hope 'Klutz-Time, USA' is history.

Yesterday, someone on tv was talking about Huck's lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. Whoever they were talking to said, look at the amount of foreign affairs experience bush had when he was elected.

I'm sure the Huckabee camp cringed when they heard that. Yeah, look what bush's lack of knowledge has gotten us into. I don't think this was a welcomed comparison for Huckabee.

Kucinich the Surprise Winner in Virginia Dems Poll

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The strong showing of grassroots support for Ohio Congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich continues to be evident across the United States, as the people's choice has just earned another victory in an online poll, this time sponsored by the Democratic Party of Virginia. ...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/1...

Mike Mid City @ 5:

pissed off patricia @ 3:

Bush got elected the first time because he promised tax cuts. The unthinking greedy Americans liked the idea of having more money in their pockets. Of course now our country is in debt up to its ass and things have gone to hell. You would think they would look back and see what has happened to our country and wise up this time. But those greedy bastards can't see beyond their own all mighty dollar, and we may see their votes going in the same direction they did in 2000.

I believe it was Rudy or Mitt who said that all the Dem candidates have promised to raise taxes. That's supposed to be more frightening than the word "terror". So the average Joe says, I don't care about the debt or collapsing infrastructure in our county, I want to buy a big assed TV and I can get it if I vote Republican.

Dear Pissed Off,

Patty, it's the Euro now. Money even the almighty dollar is portable and can be converted to other currencies. I'm thinking that the the Bush family has been shifting out of dollars to euros as soon as the figured out that W. would sink the country. You have to figure that their passports are in order and they can move where ever they want.

Bush's could care less about America.

Happy New Year everyone. (got to get better .... can't get no worst.)

dont bet on it!

Can you imagine a dirtier, more mendacious campaign, than if Giuli wins the republican nomination?

We'll have to issue a titanium 'cup' to our candidate.

Giuli's debate style starts with a kick to the nuts (or twat, as the case may be).

myiq2xu @ 24:

Preacher Boob @ 22:

We need an antidote, a vaccine, for 'Republican Dumb'.

It seems to be spreading from the churches.

Do they need to be quarantined?

Or merely bagged, and fumigated?

With an anti-psychotic spray?

If you want to know where it comes from, watch Jesus Camp, which has been playing on A&E.

I can't watch 'Jesus Camp', I'm a sensitive guy, and it makes me cry, or, alternatively, want to massacre. Can anyone conceive of a 'god' who would condone this fanatical bullshit? Surely no sane person.

Preacher Boob @ 27:

myiq2xu @ 24:

Preacher Boob @ 22:

We need an antidote, a vaccine, for 'Republican Dumb'.

It seems to be spreading from the churches.

Do they need to be quarantined?

Or merely bagged, and fumigated?

With an anti-psychotic spray?

If you want to know where it comes from, watch Jesus Camp, which has been playing on A&E.

I can't watch 'Jesus Camp', I'm a sensitive guy, and it makes me cry, or, alternatively, want to massacre. Can anyone conceive of a 'god' who would condone this fanatical bullshit? Surely no sane person.

It seems to me that claiming to be "deeply religious" is the new cover up for being deeply insane. Remember Andrea Yates drowned all her kids and claimed god told her to do it. Had she been president of the US at the time, she would have gotten off scot free.

Okay, that's a little strong but you get my drift.

pissed off patricia @ 29:

Preacher Boob @ 27:

myiq2xu @ 24:

Preacher Boob @ 22:

If you want to know where it comes from, watch Jesus Camp, which has been playing on A&E.

I can't watch 'Jesus Camp', I'm a sensitive guy, and it makes me cry, or, alternatively, want to massacre. Can anyone conceive of a 'god' who would condone this fanatical bullshit? Surely no sane person.

It seems to me that claiming to be "deeply religious" is the new cover up for being deeply insane. Remember Andrea Yates drowned all her kids and claimed god told her to do it. Had she been president of the US at the time, she would have gotten off scot free.

Okay, that's a little strong but you get my drift.

For a party that's 'pro-life', the republican crazychristianevangelicalfundamentalists are sure weird. They fight and assassinate doctors to protect a little sperm swimming upstream, and as soon as the resulting fetus emerges as a baby, they start to excise, effectively assassinate, it's brain.

"Pro-Life" is a meaningless phrase for these dirtbags...actually what they are are "Anti-Choice"...Anal-retentive Control freaks who don't want anyone to do anything without their approval or the approval of the filthy parasites who preach their sick philosophy.

This is what I have been saying since the 06 elections. It isn't just the Presidential candidates. No matter how hard the Republicans try to distance themselves from Bush, they support his policies in the Senate and House as automatically as if they were still the majority walking lockstep. This effectively gives them control. the only way to salvation is to defeat every Republican running in the next election.

tyree @ 32:

this electronic voteing has been proven as an easy way to rig elections , few of the democrats running for office have complained or done anything about it! kerry should have been the leader in calling for a different fool proof form of voteing , not a peep, he shit canned us when he just threw in the towel as soon as he could find one, no matter how crappy bush cheny was and the rest of the repigs they will fix the 08 elections if thier is to be one! hillerys very beatable , obama dito, edwards well who knows , dennis kucinich is the only un bought candidate in this election and yet you dismiss him , the only honest person running for president, hillerys a repuke !!!!!!!!!allways was , obama well he gives good speaches and ophreys for him, that alone makes him presidential material, if your hooked on the drivel her shows based on, im not voteing for anyone whos been eating at the repig swill trough, if you want hillery fine !im voteing for kucinich period, if i have to maby edwards but im leary of him, otherwise ill stay home and let you weep for eight more yrs of bush policys!!!!!!!!!!!

Diebold - Because elections are too important to be left to chance.

pissed off patricia @ 29:

Preacher Boob @ 27:

myiq2xu @ 24:

Preacher Boob @ 22:

If you want to know where it comes from, watch Jesus Camp, which has been playing on A&E.

I can't watch 'Jesus Camp', I'm a sensitive guy, and it makes me cry, or, alternatively, want to massacre. Can anyone conceive of a 'god' who would condone this fanatical bullshit? Surely no sane person.

It seems to me that claiming to be "deeply religious" is the new cover up for being deeply insane. Remember Andrea Yates drowned all her kids and claimed god told her to do it. Had she been president of the US at the time, she would have gotten off scot free.

Okay, that's a little strong but you get my drift.

'God' serves two purposes. He substitutes for reason and rationality, and relieves one of the necessity of using one's brain. He also absolves one of taking the responsibility for all the evil 'god' 'believers' do.

myiq2xu @ 18:

I recall back at the end of Gulf War I when Poppy Bush was more popular than fake tits and none of the Democratic "heavyweights" were willing to run against him. The CW was that the Democratic candidate would be taking one for the team, so Cuomo and Bradley decided to sit the 92 election out and wait for 96.

Some previously unknown hillbilly governor from Arkansas ran and ended up as the nominee. But a funny thing happened, the hillbilly won, primarily due to a bad economy and what appears to be a family trait, the "Bush nose-dive."

Whoever the eventual GOP nominee is, he will get about 35% of the popular vote even if he doesn't campaign.

Don't misunderestimate the power of the right-wing noise machine and the FAUX Ministry of Propaganda. Democrats have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before.

Sadly, you speak truth. But we have a tool we didn't have before, at least not as effective, finely honed. This web we're posting on. We must muster our forces, and immediately rebuff the slimy 'swift-boat' attacks that are sure to come. If we do it constantly, quickly, with wit, humor, and creative derision, on tools such as YouTube, etc., and immediate fund-raising where and when needed to counter the establishment, we can beat them.
If we can't, or don't, we'll have proven we're not the competent, smart, intelligent fighters we pose as being.
In which case, C'est la Vie.

Lusmu @ 40:

To: Pissed Off Patricia @28

Ed Rollins is on C-span this morning representing Huckabee. A caller called in and ask about Huck’s stand on creation. Rollins had a hard time with that one. He said Huck says he wasn’t there so he doesn’t know how it came about.

That answer is actually a telltale sign of a Creationist trying to dodge a bullet. Anyone who has debated them on any forum will recognize it immediately.

And a note to media: Evolution and Creation are two separate issues. Even though the Creationists are so confused about the matter, you don't need to be.

Using that logic, anything Huck doesn’t actually see happen, he knows nothing about. Yep, that’s presidential for ya.

You are so right. How about reversing the situation on Huckster? Was he there when God created the Universe? Was he there when the Bible was written? Is his answer acceptable now?

Of course Hucklebuck wasn't there. All that stuff happened 6,000 years ago.

He's only 5,000 years old.

Of course Hucklebuck wasn’t there. All that stuff happened 6,000 years ago.

He’s only 5,000 years old.

You must have confused Huckleberry with Thompson.

Mike Mid City @ 5:

Money even the almighty dollar is portable and can be converted to other currencies. I'm thinking that the the Bush family has been shifting out of dollars to euros as soon as the figured out that W. would sink the country. You have to figure that their passports are in order and they can move where ever they want.

Bush's could care less about America.

Happy New Year everyone. (got to get better .... can't get no worst.)

Considering the relocation of Halliburton (and other corporations) to terrorist money-laundering, slavery practicing Dubai, and the Bush interest in buying property in - what was it, Panama? - I think it's been well under way for awhile now.

As for the Euro/dollar shift - Saddam was apparently getting ready to make deals with France and Germany to get European based technology in Iraq, and base it all on the Euro. Maybe that was his biggest sin, considering how effectively Rummy, (Dow Chemical's old salesman), shocked and awed Iraq's infrastructure into oblivion and then Bush/Cheney promptly contracted the rebuilding out to his cronies, guaranteeing Iraq's infrastructure would be based on American technology and the dollar.

What must their greedy dreams have been like when they planned on using the US Treasury and the lives of our children to turn Iraq into their own perpetual money machine? Largest "embassy" in the world, labor so cheap it is more like indentured servitude than employment, control of the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, never-ending terror to keep us in line and never-ending government contracts funneling trillions out of the US and into their pockets. Those must have been happy times .

Now, maybe not quite so happy, but just as busy. They (Bush and Rove) undoubtedly learned from their Nazi-loving grandparents how to make money off of the enemy and hide their stolen wealth when the tide starts to turn. How much Nazi wealth was smuggled into South America?

And telling us they were doin' it all for Jaysus must give them such a chuckle.

Those who attempt to claim the Bush 'Mantle', are going to end up with, and in, the Bush 'Toilet'.

pissed off patricia @ 29:

Preacher Boob @ 27:

myiq2xu @ 24:

Preacher Boob @ 22:

If you want to know where it comes from, watch Jesus Camp, which has been playing on A&E.

I can't watch 'Jesus Camp', I'm a sensitive guy, and it makes me cry, or, alternatively, want to massacre. Can anyone conceive of a 'god' who would condone this fanatical bullshit? Surely no sane person.

It seems to me that claiming to be "deeply religious" is the new cover up for being deeply insane. Remember Andrea Yates drowned all her kids and claimed god told her to do it. Had she been president of the US at the time, she would have gotten off scot free.

Okay, that's a little strong but you get my drift.

Uh, I wish that were an overstatement.

solid @ 52:

Preacher Boob @ 11:

As usual, the GOP is pre-cambrian in it's policy. Their policy platform is based on the Michael Douglas movie, 'Wall Street', which celebrated greed as a desirable characteristic of American society. The movie was made in the late eighties, how prescient was that?

The 2008 election can't come too soon, the Bush administration has just discovered 'Dr. Strangelove'.

Prescient when you think about our current batch of neocon greed, but back in the 80's, "Wall Street" pretty much epitomized the Reagan years of gluttony. And I do realize some of the same seedy characters that are active now were active in the Reagan administration.

Same old, same old. The common denominator that connects the time warps, is 'republican'.

roooth @ 50:

pissed off patricia @ 28:

Ed Rollins is on C-span this morning representing Huckabee. A caller called in and ask about Huck's stand on creation. Rollins had a hard time with that one. He said Huck says he wasn't there so he doesn't know how it came about.

Using that logic, anything Huck doesn't actually see happen, he knows nothing about. Yep, that's presidential for ya.

We know who that idiot Flat-Earth woman on The View will be voting for...

If Sherri Shepard and all her ilk, vote for Hucklebuck, he'll get the one vote he deserves. Incidentally, if you Google 'the views idiot', you'll connect with Shepard, Hasselbeck, and, mistakenly, Behar.

Saint Augustine @ 46:

Preacher Boob @ 27:

I can't watch 'Jesus Camp', I'm a sensitive guy, and it makes me cry, or, alternatively, want to massacre. Can anyone conceive of a 'god' who would condone this fanatical bullshit? Surely no sane person.

I used to think that the Hare Krishnas were a pain to deal with 30-40 years ago but the evangelical movement of today is indeed scary. These people think that "doing in the name of Jesus" makes it right and since we are all sinners any sinful behavior is forgiven because Jesus died for their sins. It must be the influence of corporate America that has led to their outsourcing responsibility for their own behavior.

OMG, don't give the 'Jesus Freaks' any ideas. Imagine if, on top of all the time-wasting faux 'security', and smelly bare feet, every time we walked into an airport we had to deal with gaggles of pre-teen 'preachers', arrogantly insisting they know better than we how we should live our lives.
A Pox on 'god', and all his devilish 'Disciples'. Go to hell, quickly now, don't tarry, you little imps. Soon you'll be toasting your tootsies on the hot rocks of reality, and learn the hellish truth that your parents, and your 'Pastor', were full of sh*t.

jr @ 38:

I'm tired of the anti-choicers. The anti-public schoolers. The anti-estate taxers. The anti-IRSers. They are all whores for big business. They want to privatize everything like Pinochet did in Chile

So you're anti 'anti'? How about anti-Republican? Anti-Bush? Anti-Idiots? Anti-CrazyChristers?

pissed off patricia @ 28:

Ed Rollins is on C-span this morning representing Huckabee. A caller called in and ask about Huck's stand on creation. Rollins had a hard time with that one. He said Huck says he wasn't there so he doesn't know how it came about.

Using that logic, anything Huck doesn't actually see happen, he knows nothing about. Yep, that's presidential for ya.

It's hard to see, when your eyes are perpetually closed in faux rapt adoration of a 'heavenly' figment. Thus is begotten 'Know Nothingness'.

It is inconceivable to me that most in this country have NOT had enough of the antics put forth by the repukes under the cheney/bush administration - religious murders (crusades) in the Middle East, the worst attack on our Constitution that has ever been launched, a failing economy, a world view of America that is, to put it charitably, toxic, the utter hypocrisy regarding just about everything, incipient christianist theocracy, etc.......

Just shows the abject apathy that exists in America at this time.

myiq2xu @ 4:

The more things change, the more the Republican Party stays the same.

You can't fix stupid.

Actually you can't fix greed.

Scott @ 65:

myiq2xu @ 4:

The more things change, the more the Republican Party stays the same.

You can't fix stupid.

Actually you can't fix greed.

Yes you can. With prison.

The good news is the GOP as it stands right now is hurtling for the precipice. Between their stance on immigration, and the stench of countless scandals, they are properly perceived as the party of criminal racists. So I guess we'll see what percentage of the populace wants that as the governing standard.

roooth @ 64:

solid @ 52:

Preacher Boob @ 11:

As usual, the GOP is pre-cambrian in it's policy. Their policy platform is based on the Michael Douglas movie, 'Wall Street', which celebrated greed as a desirable characteristic of American society. The movie was made in the late eighties, how prescient was that?

The 2008 election can't come too soon, the Bush administration has just discovered 'Dr. Strangelove'.

Prescient when you think about our current batch of neocon greed, but back in the 80's, "Wall Street" pretty much epitomized the Reagan years of gluttony. And I do realize some of the same seedy characters that are active now were active in the Reagan administration.

For real fun, trace the players back to Watergate, the first real national attempt to overthrow the Constitution by thwarting a presidential election. And it was only an "attempted overthrow" in retrospect. They got away with the fraudulent election, Nixon was named the winner.

Rove was there, Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, and lots and lots of familiar names. All of whom seemed to have used the experience to make sure that what they steal now, they steal for keeps.

That's the motivation behind the election frauds of 2000, 02, 04, 06 and you better believe they're getting it all in line for 08. This is what's behind the corruption of the Justice Dept., the shameful incarceration of Governor Seligman, electronic voting machines, voter caging, voter roll purges, unconstitutional voter ID laws.

And they have been using massive privitization and their lucrative no-bid contracts to fund it all. They are not incompetent about doing what serves them. And they are getting away with it. They don't even pretend to care about lying well anymore because we aren't really even trying to stop them.

They are evil, lying murderers who have left a trail of lies, corruption and ruined lives behind them for half a century. They hate Hillary because she has been calling them what they are for decades. She got her start as part of the legal team prosecuting Watergate. I think they would kill her before they would see her in the White House.

Tell me about it. I was there. And they're not 'funding', they're looting.
Among other connections, I corresponded with Ziegler because of a telegram I sent Nixon that Western Union first refused to accept, then after I threatened a lawsuit, forced them to deliver in hard copy form to the White House.
I'd love to quote it to you, but I can't, 'cause a few folks would recognize my real identity.
But you're right, we have a serious problem, and it's urgent. It's impossible to know how much time we have to correct it, if any.
If we're too late, hello Costa Rica, Venezuela, or oblivion, if it comes to a physical fight.

NY Times: Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President

Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.

On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen at the University of Oklahoma in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.

Former Senator David L. Boren of Oklahoma, who organized the session with former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat of Georgia, suggested in an interview that if the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, “I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent.”..

And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee....

Methinks Huckabee would be the one "poles apart" ..

Can you say: "The Republicans are terrified that the Right Wing Fundamentalist Frankenstein Monster they created has taken on its own life" ???

Guardian UK: Speculation grows over Bloomberg White House bid

..
Prominent politicians including the Republican senator Chuck Hagel and the former Democratic senator Sam Nunn will be attending. Both are being named as possible running mates for Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, a 65-year-old multi billionaire, was originally a Democrat but stood as Republican as mayor of New York before declaring himself an independent last June.
..

These candidates want a position in the New World Order. When Cheney launches 9/11 part II, the 2008 election will be cancelled, Bush/Dick will remain in office indefinitely and those towing the Neocon line will have positions screwing over the population more than they are now. I mean, do you really thing DICK is going to relinquish command after dreaming of world conquest his entire life. NFW!

Preacher Boob @ 30:

VietVet8666 @ 26:

Bush's regime will provide lessons, dangerous lessons, to future presidents, unless, once out of office, he is investigated and prosecuted.

Hold up your hand if you believe the next president will relinquish all (or even most) of the scary powers Bush has asserted he has.

You have hit it on the head. But we'll end up with an alternatively-labeled member of the establishment who will say 'This is not a time to think of the past, we must think of the future', or, 'He has suffered enough, think of the disgrace', or, 'We must spend our resources for our children, not on George W. Bush'.

And then use his/her Bush-given unconstitutional powers to stifle all dissent.

That's what will happen, unless.............we somehow marshal the unlikely coup of electing a non-establishment president.

I want to specifically hear each Democratic candidates stance on whether they will investigate and prosecute the Bush administration. I want to hear each candidates stance on how they'll put the Genie back in the bottle (Bush's executive power grab). Certainly the rest of their views and the rest of their plans are important but without the answers to these questions I can't fully support one over another. Even though we have a ton of things to change the first steps must be putting things right from the 8 year reign of terror of George the Lesser.

Pursang @ 77:

I want to specifically hear each Democratic candidates stance on whether they will investigate and prosecute the Bush administration. I want to hear each candidates stance on how they'll put the Genie back in the bottle (Bush's executive power grab). Certainly the rest of their views and the rest of their plans are important but without the answers to these questions I can't fully support one over another. Even though we have a ton of things to change the first steps must be putting things right from the 8 year reign of terror of George the Lesser.

Well, I'm not interested in the top 2 candidates or Richardson (Hillary's "non-answer" answer specifically makes me sick). But 2 or 3 clicks on Edwards' site yielded something close. Of course, he's been saying this all along -- since 2002 at least -- but the terrified media still tries to ignore him. Thank God, he's starting to win anyway.

President Bush's failure to respect the Constitution and our commitment to the fundamental rule of law has badly damaged our security and our standing in the world. President Bush has sent a message that torture and other human rights violations are acceptable, creating a precedent of disregard for the law that is being exploited by terrorists and repressive governments across the world. We must restore our moral leadership in the world, and we should begin here at home. If we want to spread democracy abroad, we must strengthen democracy in America, including our constitutional freedoms and the rule of law.

Say No to Torture
The Bush-Cheney Administration has undermined our standing in the world and endangered our own troops by sanctioning the use of interrogation techniques long considered torture. Edwards will protect our troops and our values by upholding the Geneva Conventions anywhere American security forces—military or civilian—are engaged. He will issue an executive order setting clear guidelines for interrogations and prohibiting torture. He will also ban the shameful practice of outsourcing torture to other countries through "extraordinary rendition."

Restore Habeas Corpus and Shut Down Guantanamo
The Bush Administration has claimed the power to seize and indefinitely detain anybody it labels an "enemy combatant" with no due process and no lawyer, even if they were seized here in America. It built a prison at Guantanamo Bay outside the reach of our courts, creating a symbol that galvanizes our enemies and alienates our allies. As president, Edwards will shut down Guantanamo and work to resolve the status of the detainees, hundreds of whom have been held for years without being charged. He will also restore the writ of habeas corpus to reinstate judicial review of detention, rather than allow unchecked executive power.

Protect Americans' Privacy and Freedom
Our government should protect the privacy, communications, and personal records of Americans—not spy on them without court supervision as the Bush Administration has done. Edwards will end the warrantless wiretapping of Americans' phone calls and e-mails and the data-mining of Americans' communications and personal records, restoring judicial review to surveillance of American citizens. He rejects retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. He will fix the Patriot Act by restoring important safeguards to the provisions most susceptible to abuse: the "sneak-and-peek" delayed-notice searches, National Security Letters, and the business and library records provisions. He will also end racial profiling by law enforcement.

Defend the Constitution
Edwards will end the practice of issuing presidential "signing statements" that claim the administration can ignore the law. He will respect the proper roles of the Congress and the courts. He will not shroud the actions of the White House in secrecy. He will not abuse the executive privilege to hide information from Congress and the courts. And he will not interfere with the professional judgment of attorneys at the Justice Department or impose a partisan agenda on their interpretation of the nation's laws and Constitution.

BTW, here's also a link to his thoughts on a more "Open Media", which in my view is closely related to the abuse of presidential power (and our ability to find out about it in a timely fashion).

I gotta say he pretty much owns the anti-corruption issue. The dittoheads at Fox news call Edwards "angry". I say how the hell can you NOT be angry about what's being done to what Cheney has called the "monarchical powers of the presidency". Screw that goddamn red-coat tory, and his lapdog King George Me-Too.

Sorry for double post...

GoldSpider @ 82:

pissed off patricia @ 3:

The unthinking greedy Americans liked the idea of having more money in their pockets.

More people keeping more of what they earned, and less money being flushed down the government toilet? Perish the thought!

Why don't people like you mind your own business and get your greedy little rat claws away from my wallet, OK? Freaking leaches....

perfect example ,

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 78:

Of course, they keep moving to the right. That's the whole problem with the country. Everybody thinks "things must keep growing exponentially or we die!" It's a completely insane, but deeply held belief in our culture.

Population? "ZOMG, white people are having less babies! What if the U.S. population stabilizes?!! Quick start importing people like mad!!"

Economy? "Oh noes, any company that isn't growing like mad must be junk, even if it shows good profits! Dump the stock!"

Even personal life... "Screw stopping when I'm full, I must eat more today than yesterday or I will die!"

Consumption. Extremism. Somehow most Americans think this has always been our outlook (far from true, we were mostly practical, hard-nosed farmers and ranchers until the last few decades as far as I can tell -- 70% rural in 1950, 70% urban now) and they cling to the super-size-me ideology even closer... pretending it is some holy relic of the past, instead of something that would be completely revolting our pre-industrial ancestors.
...

Mid-60's my college roommate took a semester off and worked odd jobs. One was bartending at a "Madison Avenue Psychiatrist's Cocktail Party."

He explained: a "Madison Avenue Psychiatrist" is a psychiatrist hired by Madison Avenue advertising firms to use his/her knowledge of the human psyche to sell more stuff.

He told me that's where he heard the phrase "Identity Through Consumption."

Thus the American Culture of the Masses was born.

Consumption itself became an American ideal.

"Branding" went a step further.

You ARE what you wear -- Adidas, Nike, LL Bean, etc, etc. Objects are no longer purchased for their raw utilitarian value, but for the "statement" they make about the owner.

"Crossdressing" took on a whole new meaning -- wearing an Adidas hat with Nike shoes, for instance.

For it wasn't *just* important to buy a car, a beer, a shirt, a cigarette (tho of course that was fundamentally important) .. what was *really* important was the message you sent to the people around you by your choice of brands.

See also Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" where he argues that the Spirit of Capitalism turns on its head the original Protestant Ethic (work hard, thus earning favor with God, and therefore be rewarded for your hard work), the result being, "If you can pile up lots of stuff it proves God loves you."

GoldSpider @ 84:

tyree @ 83:

perfect example ,

Let me ask you this. Who's more greedy? The person who wants to keep what he has earned, or the person who wants to take what others have earned?

God, once upon a time Liberalism meant that government stayed out of the way of people who wanted nothing more than to live their own lives. What happened?

Who's more greedy, the person obsessed with making sure that nobody gets a single pea off of his plate? Or the person who realizes that everytime he gets in his car and drives on a safe road, or has someone answer if he calls 911, or has a competent electrician, or doctor, or teacher for his children, or food that's safe to eat, or free water that's safe to drink, or streets that are safe to walk on, has those things because he is living in a place where the contributions we ALL make work to make everything better for all of us?

Who is more greedy?

You damn fool, the reason you can afford to be such a comfortable greedy ass is because generations before you paid into the common welfare, providing you with a social structure from which you have the LUXURY to sit and pretend that, now that its your turn to contribute, you shouldn't have to give a penny, because you "earned it" all by yourself!

What a joke. Unless you live off the grid entirely, and do everything for yourself and NEVER use anything built or provided or enhanced by the taxes we pay, than you are not earning it all by yourself. You are earning more than 80% of the world's population earns because those who came before you paid into the future so that you could, paving the streets you travel on with their common sweat.

And liberalism never meant living off the sweat of others and keeping all of your own to yourself, it meant social activism to protect the rights of all, and make life better for all.

Next time you're in danger and need the police or firefighters, do us all a favor, just as a matter of principle, to prove how remarkably self-reliant you are and how you shouldn't be forced to participate in the social contract that so greatly upsets you, don't call for help, take care of yourself.

If you're willing to live like that, I don't care a rat's ass if you ever pay another penny in taxes.

roooth @ 87:

And why is it that whenever liberals are taken to task on taxation, they always talk about what would happen if we stopped funding the most vital government functions like law enforcement and fire protection? It's such a terrible strawman; NOBODY is suggesting that at all.

Why not instead address expenditures like farm subsidies, domestic surveillance programs, and invasions of sovereign nations? Do you consider those vital to the collective good?

"So he cheats to avoid paying what he owes." -swarmofkillermonkeys

Rather than spouting socialist slogans, please explain:

1) What does he owe?
2) Who does he owe?
3) Why does he owe it?

Anyways, Paul Krugman is generally an idiot who is gravely misguided about free-market capitalism. He is misguided in the sense that he believes that our current economy is free-market capitalism when it is clearly a Socialist-Corporatist hybrid. His answer to the ills of our economy is to make it more Socialist...

America has not had free-market capitalism since the 19th century; it was glorious when we had it, before his idiot progressive ideology...

Big Philly @ 91:

"So he cheats to avoid paying what he owes." -swarmofkillermonkeys

Rather than spouting socialist slogans, please explain:

1) What does he owe?
2) Who does he owe?
3) Why does he owe it?

Anyways, Paul Krugman is generally an idiot who is gravely misguided about free-market capitalism. He is misguided in the sense that he believes that our current economy is free-market capitalism when it is clearly a Socialist-Corporatist hybrid. His answer to the ills of our economy is to make it more Socialist...

America has not had free-market capitalism since the 19th century; it was glorious when we had it, before his idiot progressive ideology...

"...it is clearly a Socialist-Corporatist hybrid..." If you mean by this statement that corporations are helped by the government in a twisted socialism, as in corporate welfare-no argument here. It's referred to by people who know about such things as fascism. It is the exact opposite of Socialism and progressive (helping all people, supporting human rights) ideologys

Bill Gates Sr, Bill Gates Jr Warren Buffet and about 117 other billionaires feel they owe it to the rest of the country for operating in a country that allows them to become richer than any of the most of us can imagine.

"...Gates, 78, says the wealthy should pay the tax because they owe a special debt. Their riches, he says, would not be possible without a strong society supporting capitalism..."

Goddamn those Socialist billionaires. They totally fuck up your small minded avariciousness.

And quit making sharing (Socialism) sound like a dirty word. Stop being so greedy.

If you are unable to grasp the concept here's a thought-If you house is burning, put the fire out yourself. Don't call those Socialist pros, trained with tax money, bringing their Socialist trucks and equipment, also paid for by taxes. If you are a crime victim-solve it yourself. And cover all court costs for prosecution out of your own pocket. You are not allowed to call the Socialised Police.

Oh and if you need to get to work-you don't get to use the roads-tax $$$ paid for them. Same with parks. You'll need to pay a hefty fee to get into city county state and national parks-over and above any fees set now. Built by taxes.

If you're injured or sick and run through your insurance bennies and need SS Disability, you don't get a penny more than you put in. That would mean other people would be supporting you, and we couldn't have that. You are now homeless and eating out of trash cans. That sounds fair to me.

Well fuck, it didn't look like that in the preview. Sorry.

I never implied I wanted Anarchy,
And I never said you did. You need to sit down with the big book of definitions and read up on the big words you use.

The roads are paid for through a gasoline excise tax, they are not socialist at all.
You're right. They're REGRESSIVE. Not by my definition, either

Same with parks. You'll need to pay a hefty fee to get into city county state and national parks-over and above any fees set now. Built by taxes.

Public land is hardly an offensive Socialist program.-Oh but medical care for everyone is? Thanks for clearing that up. Pick and choose Socialism. If you, Big Philly, like it, bring it on.

If you're injured or sick and run through your insurance bennies and need SS Disability, you don't get a penny more than you put in. That would mean other people would be supporting you, and we couldn't have that. You are now homeless and eating out of trash cans. That sounds fair to me.

I don't want Social Security, Reread that comment. I wasn't speaking of want; I was speaking of NEED.

No, it is not the exact opposite of Socialism, Fascism and Socialism are almost exactly the same thing-actually this statement is not true.You may hold that as opinion, but it is not fact.

miss_kitty:
The greatest flaw of Socialism is that it does not achieve what its purports to do.

Well I'm sure the Norwegians will be fucking SHOCKED to hear this. Maybe we shouldn't tell them their cradle to grave care is shit and not working. The country is clean, there's little unemployment, people see doctors when they need to..Let's not wreck it for them.

Big Philly @ 94:

If you believe in the American Dream, that anyone is capable of improving their economic standing through hard work, you better get Socialism out of the way because it ruins the poor and middle classes.

The American Dream does not exist. Your whole screed to me is based on my sharing values with you. I'm much smarter than that.

Happy New Year Big Philly. I hope yours is a good one. I'm headed back to the music thread.

The roads are not regressive, in essence you pay for them in direct proportion to the amount you use them; it is the equivalent of a flat usage tax, not regressive. The social security tax is regressive because of the upper cap. The social security tax burden decreases the wealthier you get, that is regressive.

You need to sit down with the big book of definitions and read up on the big words you use.

Fine, here are over 1000 pages that you can read at your leisure which pretty much sums up my arguments.

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek (Nobel Prize Winner, Economics) This book is a classic. An alternative is:

The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek)

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises

Public land is hardly an offensive Socialist program.-Oh but medical care for everyone is?

A couple parks of public land are cheap. Free medical care for everyone is a great way to impoverish your nation, destroy the quality of care, and generally screw up the whole thing.

Well I’m sure the Norwegians will be fucking SHOCKED to hear this. Maybe we shouldn’t tell them their cradle to grave care is shit and not working. The country is clean, there’s little unemployment, people see doctors when they need to..Let’s not wreck it for them.

Norway has one of the highest Cost of Living of any nation.

Norway's welfare state is basically made possible by its ridiculous abundance of natural resources and they are aware their system is not sustainable over the long term and as a result they are liberalizing elements of their economy. (liberalizing in the free-market sense)

Norway spends 1.9% of its GDP on national defense. They are essentially subsidized in this area because they are a member of NATO and benefit from the much higher national defense spending of countries that they are in an alliance with. They would have to spend more money on their own military if they didn't have such wealthy, powerful allies who essentially guarantee their national security.

I will give Norway some credit, after looking over the CIA Factbook I notice that their politicians are actually fiscally responsible! They actually have budget and current account surpluses! Looking over a paper concerning Norwegian monetary policy they actually look like one of the closest adherents to free-market, sound money in the whole world! Their central bank's primary concern is maintaining the purchasing power of their currency by keeping inflation low (although it would be better if they targeted 0% instead of 2.5%) and their deposit requirements for loans is 100%! This is highly uncharacteristic of a welfare/socialist economy; their poor and middle classes are not ravaged by a shameful socialist/Keynesian deficit-spending monetary policy like those here in America (I'm looking at you Federal Reserve Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke...).

The American Dream does not exist. Your whole screed to me is based on my sharing values with you. I’m much smarter than that.

Wow. Just Wow. Here ya go. You might want to take advantage of that link sometime during the next decade because American prosperity in general is coming to an end. Our disastrous fiscal policies are going to finally come home to roost in the coming years and the American standard of living is going to drop significantly.

And BG Jr is giving it back. Here’s the link to his foundation. Whose the hypocrite? Hmmm. Could it be the ignorant Socialist hating guy telling us how the billionaire should have been divesting himself of his funds?

When Bill Gates creates a foundation and donates his money to charity, spending it how he sees fit, he is not being a Socialist! I commend him for doing so! If he kept his funds for himself, I could care less! If he does what he wants with his money, I am happy! The hypocrisy I was speaking of is saying that they be forced to give back to society when NOT doing so yourself. Bill Gates only started his charity recently.

Socialism is not voluntary! Socialism is by definition implemented through state force!

Oddly I agree with you on two things:

1. Thread quoting getting messed is annoying. Happens to all.

2. The continual changing of labels game is also very annoying. I mean, as one point fiscal conservatives were called "Republicans" instead of "Democrats"! Can you imagine?! C'est la vie! (You're a liberal, so you get French, right?)

Sorry, it sure sounded like you blamed Krugman for the change in economic conditions (ie. wacky things like labor standards) 108 years ago. But if you think 1899 was the "bestest time evah" (especially than the progressive post WWII, "greatest generation" era with it's record breaking middle class) then there's now point in discussion. The things you and the other 0.5% like you want out of the country are not what the rest of us want. We want a decent fucking country. You want a free market utopia?

Move to fucking Iraq. Or Somalia. It's all about the money. Got money? You can get what you want then. Move there and you can be your own little robber baron... screwing the country into oblivion with your gluttony -- but leave my beloved America out of it. You're just to goddamn lazy (or ignorant) to put up or shut up. Your "free market" as a government/religion is out there RIGHT NOW.

But neither you nor those like you will EVER go walk the walk. You know why? SOCIALISM. You are too chickenshit to leave this cocoon of minimal socialism (such as any of it is left). What hypocrisy.

And before you can say it, "why don't I move to socialist Scandinavia"? Well the immigration quotas are much harder for one. But sure, it is a really lovely place to spend time, I wouldn't mind living there for a while at all (grew up high in the Rockies. -40F and snow don't bother me). Any female Swedish swimsuit models need a mail order groom? And if I get a sick, I'll get treatment instead of being trampled to death, burned alive, and hung from a lamp post. I prefer it that way, even with 10% higher taxes -- I guess I'm the crazy one.

Yelling? Who's yelling? I laughed at you for pretending that the late 1880s is some sort of utopia trampled upon by that durn Krugman. No wealth exists in a vacuum. Inherited wealth is dealt with well enough by the Gates, Warren Buffet, and the rest. The problem many have is they see sequestered wealth as not having ANY effect on the rest of the economy or state. That is completely false, and a poor assumption to begin with. You can pretend that ending horrible exploitation was just happened to coincide with ending the robber baron aristocracy and busting trusts. But you'd have to be a complete fool. The events are not unrelated.

No citizen of a state exists in a vacuum. Sorry, it's the truth. There's no Santa either. Nor can all obligations to the state you've incurred be simpleton "use fees" or "transaction" fees. Doesn't work. How do you determine a "use fee" for the deterrent effect large, technically capable army? You don't. But you need one, and that effect, and if you are an American, you're damn well going to have to either chip in, or convince 51% of the others that we don't need an army because everyone else plays nice. It goes on from there, but only gets more boring and obvious.

What strikes me is that often people point to a time when there were a HUGE failure of the markets as the "golden era" of "capitalism". That ISN'T capitalism. You need a new word. Try feudalism. Or barony. Because when all your markets devolve into monopolies that is a FAILURE or "free-market capitalism". Not free-markets. Not capitalism (no free exchange). No good. But I have full confidence that you will resist this complicated nuance. So take the lead from Mr. Duke and actually go DO what you bitch about. Join the free market, anything goes fray... freed at last from any hint of the dreaded "socialism" foisted upon you so grevously by damnable "progressives".

Freed from chaffing morals like "compassion to your fellow man" the opportunities are limitless. Drug running and arms smuggling are ALWAYS in demand. Human trafficking, and transplantable body parts too (forcibly collecting said body parts is more of a... technical job -- best stick to business). From cocoa fields in South America to heroin out of Afghanistan (hell, you probably could do it without even leaving the "American soil" on base there). Maybe you could help Uncle Sam "lose" a few hundred thousand assault rifles to the PKK and start a major conflict with Turkey (be sure to invest in Haliburton, Blackwater, and the Carlyle group first of course). Be damned if the money doesn't almost print itself! That there is honest free-market goodness. Demand. Supply. And a thrifty man can ALWAYS manufacture some human misery on demand...

You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory.

So get to it soldier! Go make J.P. Morgan proud... oh, what's that? Oh. You're just going to sit on your ass at bitch about how you didn't inherit enough, you are taxed too much, and generally how it's everyone else's fault you aren't wealthy enough (and never will be). Huh. Well, that doesn't sound a damn bit like a "capitalist" at all! I do believe Mr. Morgan would beat you down.

Finally. Your last post deserves more time and though than I have at the moment, but quickly here is the key as I see it:

We wouldn’t need all these cries for Progressivism to save our standard of living if the wealth of Americans hadn’t been taken and squandered in nothing more than fascist profiteering.

Now that may be true. But it doesn't matter. The question is can we get to a better place, now, through archaic, regressive policy? No, I don't think so. You can't wind back the clock. Hell, it'd be really nice to roll back the clock to when we had Clinton's budget surplus as well, instead of having the neocons piss it away into the pockets of the already super-wealthy. But that isn't an option. Social programs (such as the wacky idea that WWII vets should get a college education, and the government could play a role in that) may will be necessary to get back to a place where we can have luxury of then rolling back government.

It's funny that any amount of breathing space that is created for the average American by governmental influence is quickly claimed by "capitalists" that then try to stab that part of government to death. Though I admit the goal of a successful society is to reduce government -- when and where it is no longer useful only.

Another point, is you persist on the idea that "socialism" is strictly a monetary policy. In my view (and in the view of many others) it isn't. Sure, any economic system boils down to spending priorities and who gets to make them, but between those that insist "capitalism" is a actually form of government that replaces the constitutional republic (or a theology!), and those that claim "socialism" has nothing to do social mores, only business regulation... well, people just cram their definition onto the word to make fantastically unrealistic models. I won't say you are, but the idea that you place fascism on the other side of the scale from capitalism leads me to thing you are muddying things intentionally or not. People need to get out of the Cato Institute and into the real damn world once in a while. (the two are not mutually exclusive at all)

For example, J. P. Morgan was a capitalist. Hell, he is the pinnacle of the idea of unrestricted capitalism.

"I owe society nothing."

His most famous quote. Note any echo to your first complaints above?

"Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd."

Hey, I don't blame you for not wanting to be associated with the guy. But that is unrestricted capitalism at its finest. You can have RESTRICTED or well-regulated capitalism, but in the common understanding of the word, you will now be accused of "planning" or "creeping socialism". It's unavoidable. The best things about America are the balance, from social policies that inhibit racial discrimination in hiring (is that not socialism?) to the FANTASTIC wealth created for this country by the results of government-funded scientific research (NASA, Sandia, LLNL, Oak Ridge, EVERY major university, etc.). This may be intentionally abused in a spectacular way by the current thieves in office, but there is plenty of historical evidence that GOVERNMENT, not private industry has time and again make the largest leaps forward possible, later allowing private enterprise to feast on the remains of that research. Again with balance, I certainly wouldn't say that this means we must drop private markets immediately and just trust the government for everything! That is the thinking of a small child. Binary thinking. Everything is black or white... well, it isn't! There is a role for both to play... it should not be that hard to figure that.

Similarly, good god... 1875-1905?! Huh, wonder if anything else was going on at that time?! We just finish something that might have economic ramifications?! Abstracting a few statistics (whose validity I certainly question) from the actual events of the time are meaningless. What WAS life like for the immigrant population that as you say "doubled"? Nice? Were they included in this supposed "stable consumer pricing" and "doubling the median real income"? Here's a clue: NO! At least a good third of them were Irish, and nobody gave a damn if the Irish were killed in the street. Murder records of the Irish were often not kept. They were despised, and if hired were off the books. They were considered sub-human, without souls, and EXPLOITED. How about the Chinese that built rail lines through the west? Let me guess, you think they were carefully surveyed about the price of consumer goods from the company store, the fairness of their indentured servitude, and whether they were happy with their raises and bonuses?! HA! Wow, such naiveté. I can tell you what happened in one town I'm familiar with when the chinese minors complained about always being shoved into dangerous jobs and paid half of the white workers (also exploited greeks, slavs, italians, etc.). They were rounded up, locked in their residences and burned alive, or otherwise assassinated -- without ANY charges filed. Sounds awesome, huh? And if you pretend that this was a lone anecdote of exploitation, murder, coverup, and later lying in statistics during this era, I swear I'll reach through teh intarwebs and slap some sense into you myself! The beginning of the industrial revolution at that time only made the exploitation of such workers (and now children) that much easier. This "textbook" number quoting is worse that misleading, it is just plain wrong.

You could learn far more about the fiscal policies of the era and their real impact by listening to a 90 year old farmer in North Dakota talk about his family than you'll find in an ivory tower bullshit "economist" session by some academic idiot whose only contact with the real world was taking a taxi to the college republican's meeting in New Jersey.

That was NO golden era for most people. Things are better now. You can claim this has nothing the obligation of a citizen to society, but you'd be dead wrong. It won't stop you from using this position that the rest of society has gifted you with (while you buy houses, and can raise many children healthily and safely) all the while bitching about the "socialist" policies that made the good life possible. But maybe when you are older, if you really HAVE done well (like Mr. Buffet for example) you'll finally stop, think about it for once, and get it.

I would think then, you'd be happy to give a portion back, as are the rest of us. I'm way out of time, so this may be sloppy, ant there are many other problems with your outlook and outrage at the idea that you are inextricably linked to the society you thrive in, but if you aren't at least open by now, there probably isn't a point in continuing. The fact is, if you are "middle class" or wish to become middle class you are de-facto supporting socialist policies.

Blame Krugman or not -- I'm not really familiar with that man -- my original statement was a reaction to being introduced to an interesting text about the relationship of capitalism to the "puritan work ethic". This work so far seems very insightful and accurate to me. Take a look (linked above, it's free). And I wonder, simply, if or when we might return closer to the origins of capitalism in the WAY in which we think about capitalism, and the meaning of wealth. As I've tried to explain here, I think it is overdue.

Big Philly @ 106:

social policies that inhibit racial discrimination in hiring (is that not socialism?)

Correct, its not; that is a defense of individual natural rights, one of the principles our nation was founded upon.

Oh knock it off. You're not that dumb. You mean like denying suffrage to women and blacks and the Three Fifths compromise (among many)? Those principles the nation was founded upon? Anti-discrimination hiring practices are a social policy forced on the private sector that was unwilling to undertake such an action voluntarily. It is central planning. The state government directing economic policy directly. It certainly influenced the economy.

FANTASTIC wealth created for this country by the results of government-funded scientific research. plenty of historical evidence that GOVERNMENT, not private industry has time and again make the largest leaps forward possible

For the most part I disagree with this, what fantastic wealth? The overwhelming majority of things that increase wealth and standard of living have been created in the private sector: any kind of vehicle, anything in your house, almost everything electronic... The major exception that I can think of is the proto-internet, which was originally created by the military as part of a defense contract. However, the modern internet has been created in the private sector. Please, show me this independent study that shows that GOVERNMENT is the solution to all of life's problems.

I just pointed out that binary thinking is childish, yet here you are. Where did I say government is the solution to all life's problems? I didn't. But I did give the example that government has successfully stepped in on large projects that were either beyond or unpalatable to private industry. After paving the way, of course such technologies were privatized (with the exception of electricity generation in some areas). Are you unable to read the word "balanced" in my reply? And you disagree with wealth creation overall, or the emergence of a stronger (or any) middle class somewhere between 1905 and 2000? Uh, OK!

Rural electrification, microwave communications (from radar on planes, to cell phones, to wifi hotspots, satellite technology (all space technology and spin-offs, actually -- GPS), yes DARPA's internet which was funded for use BEYOND military purposes by the government once practical civilian applications were discovered (see Al Gore), cleaner coal technology, innumerable advances in chemistry and materials science (metal alloys, carbon fiber casting) transitioned to industry, on and on. Go look yourself at any of the National Labs if your interested. Private industry is STILL unable to handle enough space launches reliably and every American uses space technology EVERY DAY. Even if all they do is check the weather. This is especially infuriating because private industry has become so lazy, risk-adverse, entitled, and cost cutting that many WONDERFUL new technologies have been sitting on the shelves at the national labs (or snapped up by giant corporations that then fucking sit on the patents to protect ponderously obsolete business models, or corporate influence in government). The market IS failing there too (one small example).

This doesn't even count less direct government subsidies of private industry such as the millions of tax incentives for manufacturing or technology development or any other infrastructure (there's that central planning again -- not very "free market").

But ELECTRICITY AND CARS?! Wow. Just wow. Hello? How the HELL do you think electricity became a national infrastructure? Did it spring forth, fully formed from the forehead of Zeus? Um, no. Your GOVERNMENT created that infrastructure, and hence the market for all those devices you credit to private industry alone.

Let me make this as simple as possible (because I'm starting to think you are just trolling me because you are obviously intelligent enough). You have a car. Why? To DRIVE, right? Where do you drive that car? Where do hundreds of millions of people drive there cars? I'm going to guess, by the very vast majority, on a ROAD. That would be (99.99% of the time) on a road created by GOVERNMENT to support private industry. In fact, you may want to look at just how successful that government project really was in spurring private industry in the history of the freeway, and the negative effects the automobile lobby had on rail transport of goods and urbanites (that now we are finally correcting. Yes, through federal funding!).

I'm going to stop arguing since you operate under the flawed assumption that things are "good" right now. Our economy is in shambles, 2008 is an analogy year to 1928/9 or 1970/71. We are going to reap the benefits of state influenced and controlled monetary policy, whether it be left-wing (socialist) or right-wing (fascist) over the next several years and we'll see then how you feel about it.

Things, even with the terrible last 10 years, really are better now than in 1890 on the average. Yes. I did just fine in the 1990s instead, and didn't even have to sell off a child so the rest of us could eat. You may not like Morgan, but J.P. Morgan and his policies dominated the era you are crowing about. I'm perfectly happy preferring the Clinton era instead. Now you want to pretend that I support Bush? On Crooks and Liars? Hahaha! Not even close. Sorry that "dog won't hunt" (damn you Clinton). The policies of Reagan and the Bushes are vibrantly different by almost any metric than the "modern progressive" views. You can single out whichever metric you like, you are still neglecting world events from economic results. Now THAT is very Bush-like. Complete myopia.

there are many other problems with your outlook and outrage at the idea that you are inextricably linked to the society you thrive in

Society as an entity in and of itself error in thinking; society is a sum of individuals, not an entity. Society does not make decisions, do work, or care about anything. Individual people do! Read, it does the mind good.

So, if I owe anybody anything: I owe my parents, who worked hard for me; I owe my teachers, who I learned from; I owe my friends, who are great; and I owe my co-workers. Everything else I paid for with hard earned money! I don't owe an abstract entity called society shit and I sure as hell don't owe you anything.

And who do your friends owe? Your teachers? Did they get financial aid from the government for their educations? Your parents? Your grandparents? The cops that caught your would be killer before he got to your house? The FBI that gave the cops the evidence leading to the killer? The courts that tried him? You paid all of them, really? All your co-workers? None of them use government services directly or indirectly? None benefit from government research or even indefensibly silly government things (like endowments for the arts)? No one's wife or husband or niece is an artist that has benefited from these grants? No public transit by any of the lot? Any of them trade on the big board? Who provides massive security for our entire market system?

Even with just the group you try to cut away from "society as an entity" in your words... your ideas just don't fly. You are trying to have it both ways. Society IS a sum of individuals, but you try to abstract a select group of those individuals and paint that group alone as self sufficient, with no interdependency on the rest AT ALL. You can't. That's called "make believe". If you want to see if that group is self sufficient you HAVE TO ACTUALLY REMOVE IT. Then we'll talk. This is why I recommended the experiment above. Go for it. Or if you can afford the initial buy-in, try Dubai. Another anything goes free market experiment. But don't you and all your support network suck up all that decades of these socialist benefits have accorded you and then proclaim you did it all by yourself.

Every outrage you have at free-market economics is misdirected; you are pissed off at exploitation of minorities, which is a damnation of the state's lack of protecting individual rights which has nothing to do with how economics works.

Minority exploitation is a convenient example of the repeated FAILURE of capitalism alone to provide a free market system that the majority of the citizens were happy with, or could benefit from. It took government regulation, not just of economic policy (trust busting), but of social policy forced upon the J.P. Morgans of the world. It is hardly the only issue.

And you are completely wrong: labor exploitation (based on race or not) is at the core of the economic gains of the last... oh say millennia. We all had gauls/africans/irish/chinese/mexicans/the raj/the unclean. And so it continues.

I'm just glad you're not an engineer, because you'd claim the drive-shaft had nothing whatsoever to do with the car working as intended, just the wheels and the engine. I mean, it looks just fine from the outside, right?

I'll tell you what I would have done if I were President Bush; instead of applying tax cuts to the highest income brackets, capital gains, and dividends,which by the way is blatant fascist policy, while giving the average American a $500 check as candy to distract them from the fact that they were getting fucked, I would have eliminated the bottom 2 income tax brackets and you wouldn't have to pay income tax on any penny you earned under $31,850. Total cost, about $250-300bn. With the remainder of the money I would do this:I would make Social Security an optional program so that young people can opt out and keep their money while the people who are depending on it as a financial stream of income will still get their checks.

So are my free-market plans really that evil?

So... you only tax the rich to support government programs (that you can choose NOT to benefit from. great, that should appease the guardians of "capitalism")? That ISN'T socialism? WTF?

I'm not saying your idea is bad (I'm honestly not even considering it, because your ideas to change our socialist leaning system to a different socialist leaning system aren't what we were discussing). Your abuse of the words "capitalism", "socialism", and "fascism" as commonly understood are. I'm not claiming I'm the world's authority on anything here, but you are completely contradictory from one statement to another, whether quoting from a textbook or not. Anytime ANY absolutist starts blaming either "socialism" or "capitalism" alone for all the woes of the world, alarm bells start going off for me.

Medicare is almost beyond repair, its going to end in fiscal calamity unless we do something drastic. The sum total of future unpaid obligations exceeds the entire net value of the United States of America.

Medicare?

A) An urgent "calamity"? don't believe you. Perhaps I'm wrong, as there is nothing as optimistic as a government projecting revenues at "some future date" (ie. somebody else's problem), but we'll see.

B) Gosh, if only there was a politician or two that talked about health care. Maybe some new sort of idea in healthcare in America. Perhaps tossing around some ideas for changing or integrating Medicare with larger federal system.

We have a lump of old people that distorts the bell curve. So what? Any solution will be either expensive, and suck (expanded minimal mandatory healthcare), or morally untenable, and suck (soylent green), or some worse combination of the two. That's life. You can be angry about the realities of life. Still the problem remains.

[clipped in interest of space... "Greenspan was an idiot" etc. ]

The sub-prime market and the downright fraud which started taking place in 2006 (which I'm not an apologist for, I think those fuckers should be prosecuted and be put behind bars because half the shit they put on those loan agreements were lies) is only the first part of the credit market to collapse.

I pretty much agree about Greenspan (and 90% of all "economists" that hold sway in academia or government). So you are for stronger oversight and regulation then!

The rest if it will follow suit because home prices are going to fall and there is nothing that can stop it. The investment banks are going to suffer massive losses and they deserve them. Now, what the FED is doing in the meantime is socializing the losses across the American people by printing a ton of new money. Answer me damn you, since you love socialism do you approve of what they are doing? I contend that it was the investors and the banks who took the risk and they deserve (this is my favorite word, deserve or desert; your favorite word is need) to suffer their losses and those who committed fraud deserve to go to prison!

Binary thinking. Why in the hell would I approve of subsidy for a group that should in fact be felons? Just like you (admit it or not) are a blend of socialist policies and governmental regulation of capitalism, so am I. I don't have to either be a communist or a fascist. Really that mindset is tiring, and all too prevalent on the internet. For someone that espouses society as an aggregate of "individuals" the repetition of this flaw in thinking is odd. Honestly, I don't know if you are jerking my chain or not.

I don't think the airlines should have been bailed out and turned into the "Amtrack of the skys" after 911 either. So we go from 20 to 10. BFD, that's competition. People will still fly. No "progressives" (as those that identify as such on this blog) that I know of would support that crap either. Only those that identify as "republican" or "free-market capitalists". Hipocracy? Yes. Abuse of the idea of "capitalism"? Yes. But why would the party of the populists support such obviously bad ideas? We don't own the damned airlines or investment banks, and there's no benefit there to anyone else.

You love socialism when it benefits you, how about when it screws you in the ass?

Well, as I've not personally taken anything in the ass just yet I suppose I can't answer that. But again, if I were you, I'd support socialist polices that make sense, and not support graft of public funds when that is detrimental. You don't want it up the ass, don't rigidly confine yourself by graphs and charts on a piece of paper. Anything to an extreme can be bad. Some socialism good. Fire hot -- ouch! Burns!! Hm. Fire warm too. Fire cook food. And Fire melt shiny rocks for axe... OK, SOME Fire good...

One of these days in the next couple years Americans are going to wake up and realize that they have been taken to the poorhouse by the absolute most ridiculous thing I have ever seen, a government that is both fascist and socialist at the same time. Our currency and our economy are being absolutely gutted and destroyed. The great irony is I don't even have to worry that much about socialism we aren't going to be able to afford it anyways. I pray that Ben Bernanke isn't a total madman and he doesn't create a hyperinflationary scenario; more than likely he is creating stagflation to rival the 1970s. Don't come crying to me when you have no savings or purchasing power of any meaningful value, I'm trying to warn you.

I'm out, I need to go make money and put it into an inflation hedged asset to prepare for our economic crisis instead of sitting around trying argue with someone who thinks that all is well and in general doesn't know a damn thing about economics...

At least we seem to agree on one thing. The current government and fiscal policy has fucked America.

Well, you aren't the first to realized that the neocon Bush crew is, in fact, a VERY far left radical group, in a sense that they are complete statists. Not that "right-left" means anything anymore. It disgusts me, as I actually grew up an asshole libertarian too (before I learned not to shit in the house, and became a human being -- more Robert A. Heinlein, than Ayn Rand... I wasn't THAT much of an asshole!). That doesn't mean I should deny the visible evidence of the occasions when the state does something good.

Speaking of charts, Pournelle has a handy graphic here that shows things just a bit more clearly. I don't a really always agree with him, but take a look at it. It is a better tool, because obviously once communists or corporate fascists take power, they all merge into dictatorships anyway (USSR, Cuba, Russia, etc.). The ruling party (only party) owns everything, then there is everyone else. Certainly, this is where Cheney and Bush are headed, with the help of many wealthy supporters. This must be stopped. But we needn't throw away the actual GOOD we've managed to wring from government in the process, and we don't have to. In fact, this would only serve to radicalize even more people. And THAT really has to stop, I agree. Whew, sorry no proofing.. a mans gotta eat and sleep, typos be damned...